‘Spheres of influence’ can determine whether the will of the people as expressed at free and fair elections is upheld

Mar 21, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Apart from the canned stuff put out by Reuters, thus far, little or nothing about the situation in Myanmar has been analysed by Guyanese for Guyanese or editorialised in the mainstream media.
These days, because of naked self-interest, attention is paid more to the exigencies of the domestic rather than the international situation.
Ever since the army seized power in that South East Asian country following the abortion of the November 4 election, hundreds of protestors are being shot and killed while thousands are still being beaten by armed thugs and imprisoned on trumped charges.
Some have asked, why should Guyanese be concerned about crimes being committed by a military cabal against a people in a faraway country called Myanmar? Were those people ever concerned over the attempts by the APNU+AFC to steal the elections in Guyana? Have they ever heard about Guyana? And do they know the difference between Guyana and Ghana?
There is no certainty to the answers to the last three questions, what we do know is that in Guyana, a civilian cabal attempted to steal the election while in Myanmar, a military cabal attempted to do the same but in so doing, has plunged the country into a blood bath.
The military junta in Myanmar is acting in clear violation of the civil, political and cultural rights of the citizens of that country.
Unlike Guyana, Myanmar is not in the US’s ‘sphere of influence’. China and India are the dominant powers in that part of the world. China is a member of the P5 while India is a member of the P15 of the UN Security Council.
India’s and China’s competing interests in Myanmar is characterised by mutual constraints and challenges. Neither one is free to do as they would like to in Myanmar. Third countries are reluctant to get involved for fear of offending China or India or both.
The following statements attest to third countries’ reluctancy.
According to India’s FM ‘We feel that the people on the ground should not suffer. India will continue to monitor the situation and remain engaged with like-minded countries to meet the hopes and aspirations of the people of the country.’
And China declared; ‘It will not chose one side or the other, if the authorities cannot deliver and the chaos continues to spread China might be forced into taking more drastic action to protect its interests.’
In the meanwhile, ASEAN ‘Expressed concern on the situation in Myanmar and called on all the parties to refrain from instigating further violence, and for all sides to exercise utmost restraint as well as flexibility.’
UN watchers in Guyana were keen to observe the large number of empty seats at a Special Session of the UNGA convened to discuss the situation in Myanmar. The world watched as Myanmar’s Permanent Representative to the UN shed tears while appealing to a seemingly indifferent and numb world for help.
It was not surprising that the Hall was almost empty. Myanmar has few friends due to decades of self-imposed isolation, military rule, internal oppression and suppression. Moreover, the genocide committed against the Rohingya people only served to isolate the country.
Realpolitik demonstrates that while Guyana and Myanmar fall within two distinct ‘spheres of influence’ in our global village, ‘spheres of influence’ can determine whether the will of the people as expressed at free and fair elections is upheld and the results therefrom respected.
Guyana is a case in point.
The traditional concept of ‘spheres of influence’ is considered predetermined geographic spaces where big powers claim to have significant security interests and actively seek to play a material role to protect those interests.
Guyana is considered to be within the US’s sphere influence or its ‘backyard.’ Myanmar is not.
Guyana, could be either a source of trouble or a reliable partner for the US, not Myanmar.
Guyana has opted to be a reliable partner for the US in the same way that Myanmar is for China and India.
Since Guyana falls within the US’s sphere of influence, the recent virtual meeting between the Guyanese and the Chinese Presidents could prove to be ‘a bee in the bonnet’ US Secretary of State.
Had it not been for international pressure principally applied by the US, Guyana would have remained saddled with an undemocratic government.
This does not mean to say that the Guyanese people including the media, played no role, on the contrary they did.
The people of Myanmar like the people of Guyana have rejected the theft of the November election results, for them the struggle will be long and hard but in the end, they too shall overcome.

Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs

---

---