Dear Editor,
I am compelled to respond to some comments made by Mr Freddie Kissoon in his Kaieteur News column of September 6, 2008.
Therein, he pointed to what he termed the PNCR’s boycott of Carifesta and the participation by the PNCR in stakeholder consultations on the proposed Cariforum Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union.
He then concluded that “the present PNC leadership is surely not far from being totally confused” and asked “what kind of politics is the PNC playing?”
I wish to let it be known that the PNCR is very clear and focused in its thinking. We see the two events as being qualitatively different.
In the case of Carifesta we were being invited to participate in events of a celebratory nature demonstrating unity, and it was, and remains, our view that we could not in good conscience make a pretence of celebration and unity when there were deep concerns about governance of, and fractiousness in, our society.
In the case of the proposed EPA Mr Kissoon cunningly casts the framework of the stakeholder consultation within the context of “an invitation by President Jagdeo to denounce the EPA.”
The invitations received by PNCR MPs said “the activity would be dedicated to critically examining the entire document with a view of highlighting those elements that constitute risks for Caricom” and that “The meeting is also tasked with identifying a way forward.”
That is the framework within which we participated because, as a national party, we saw dangers in the EPA as initialled. Such dangers, if not addressed, we believe, could adversely affect the quantum and quality of benefits to be derived under such an agreement by the people of Guyana.
The PNCR perceived the national interest, in this case, as requiring us to make our position known in the presence of the European Union’s representative.
It should also be explained that the final form of any EPA negotiated will be something that Guyana will have to live with for the foreseeable future (of course by agreement among all the signatories there could be changes). The PNCR presents itself as the alternative to this government and, therefore, must be interested in the quality of the EPA negotiated since it could fall to the PNCR to have to administer an inadequate agreement. Further, the people must see the party as demonstrating that interest.
I trust that the PNCR’s position is now better understood.
Yours faithfully,
Winston S. Murray
Corbin is a political opportunist. I would never vote for the fellow. maybe Murray you should take leadership of the party. Under Corbin the party got no vision.
how is this relevant to what murray said in his letter? you guys are so extremely biased and empry you will never be able to disern the woods from the forest.
Winston Winston !!!!!!you are dreaming man.how on God’s earth you and the pncr could ever become the “alternative” to govern guyana?are you in hopes that the US will install your pncr in power again?Noice dream though Winston ehehehe
I’m afraid that the PNC got both issues quite wrong. Their opposition to Carifesta came across as childish and unpatriotic and it was not surprising that their call for a boycott was ignored by everyone. On the EPA, however, they have clearly not done their homework and have allowed Jagdeo to hoodwink them into supporting his untenable stance. I was at the so-called consultation on the EPA and Murray’s statement was devoid of any specifics. As in his letter, he could only point to the “dangers” contined in the agreement. Maybe it’s because they found it difficult to oppose people like Ramphal and C Y Thomas (their “own” people) who have, on the basis of very little evidence and outright misrepresentations opposed the EPA. Any opposition party has the obligation to do its own research and the PNC has done none. Despite the innocuous wording of the formal invitation, Mr. Murray cannot claim that the “consultation” was not intended to denouce the EPA (as Freddy Kissoon rightly said) since it was clear from Jagdeo’s previous statements, including a letter to the Chronicle from Prem Misir, that the intent of the meeting was to garner support for Jagdeo’s anti-EPA stance. Misir had said in that letter that, once the consultations are held, people will see that the EPA represents a new form of colonialism. That alone should have given Murray a clue as to what the ‘consultation’ was all about.
…… je sius le advocatus diaboli ! read between the lines ,, it;s all in there and more !!!!!!!!!