My philosophical reflections on Ukraine, Charrandass and Ian McDonald

Oct 30, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – I cannot and will not accept any explanation from the defenders of Russia’s position on why it invaded Ukraine. The main argument is that Russia’s security was threatened.

Every country in the past and in the present has security considerations; none whatsoever is without it. But there cannot be a war if there is no provocation. Russia simply refused long periods of patient negotiations and chose war. Putin must be condemned for that.

The condemnation of Russia by the world community must be based on morality and principles in the relations among states. There cannot be one rule for global behavior for some countries and a different rule for others. If countries practiced that kind of double standard, then they are inviting the action of war mongers like Putin.

There are no sanctions by any country in the West against Israel that has annexed the Golan Height from Syria and occupies, controls and administers lands that do not belong to the state of Israel but the Palestinian people. How can one sanction Russia without doing the same to Israel?

The double standard in these two situations mirror what has taken place in the Charrandass Persaud situation. Unfortunately, a man that played a priceless role in the use of conscience against permanent power has fallen from grace.

Charrandass has been a long-standing friend of mine. In times like these, one has to make a choice. It is not almost but completely impossible to defend him. The runner stumbles sometimes and Charran certainly stumbled.

The professor was not as silent as some would like to believe. She was very vocal in her confrontation with Charran but Charran gave away his rights by descending to a level that cannot be accepted by a country that he represents as an ambassador.

No ambassador should react like that. No man should tell a woman those things that Charran did. The woman was performing a laudable act of feeding a stray animal. Unfortunately Charran missed that golden motto – “the human soul will never be complete unless one loves an animal.”

It was expected that some quarters in Guyana would come out swinging against Charran. You cannot blame them. The issue is what Charran did and what he did cannot be excused. The Guyana Government was expected to sanction him.

As a friend of Charran, it was and remains impossible for me to defend him. I will not defend him. He should never have said those things whether he was an ambassador or an ordinary soul.

You just do not say those things. Humans do inexplicably stupid things that undo them. But there is a larger picture we must look at. That portrait involves complex philosophical issues.

Here is a question that invites philosophical reflections; what is moral wrong? Is what Charran did so profoundly depraved that is lies at the apex of moral turpitude or are there moral violations that exist in the same category and therefore one’s own moral values are open to question if one does not take a principled  position based on conscience and moral correctness?

Here the Charrandass saga and the Ukraine war present the identical dilemma. Can you sanction Russia without doing the same for Israel? Can you condemn Charran without condemning election rigging?

My answer is based on what I believe is the existence of a set of core values that I believe has absolute validity even though I recognize that most philosophers have been unable to argue for the existence of absolute values. Even a genius like Immanuel Kant was unable to solve this puzzle.

In this labyrinth, stands literary icon Ian Mc Donald. I never met Mr. Mc Donald. I never saw him in real life. But he solves the philosophical conundrum of relative values versus absolute ones.

A man never known to dabble in anything connected, even remotely with politics, Mr. Mc Donald, condemned twice in his columns the attempts to rig the March 2020 elections. Mr. Mc Donald also said he cannot support the newspaper of which he was chairman of the board telling a professor that his letters will not be published if he writes critical things about civil society groups.

Reading Mr. Mc Donald over the decades, I can say with prodigious certainty he would publically express his revulsion about Charran did. So what is the point?  It is that that in Mr. Mc Donald we find the expression of the principled stance against wrongs that are committed in a society.

On the other hands, like the condemners of the Russian invasion, there are those in Guyana who interpretation of human action is based on convenience and narrow-mindedness. That doesn’t help the moral growth of civilization.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not this newspaper.)

---

---