Dear Editor,
The editorial of Thursday, August 28, 2008 in the Stabroek News was especially lengthy, taking up all but 16 column inches of a whole page.
Titled ‘EPA rumblings,’ it indeed was full of ramblings in attempting to review the negotiations between the EC and Cariforum on the proposed Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).
It would appear that while the whole wide world is aware that the astute Bharrat Jagdeo was the first, at his level, to register dissatisfaction with several clauses in the proposed agreement and vehemently refused to sign on as requested by the EU, quite deliberately and seemingly provocatively, the author of the editorial decided not to acknowledge this vital fact if an honest review of the ‘EPA rumblings’ were to be conducted.
To this humble layman, it is a direct affront to the President of Guyana. It also demonstrates the obvious contempt which is often embraced by the Stabroek News in treating with the highest office holder in our country. No mention whatever was made of the significance of the action adopted by President Jagdeo.
Yours faithfully,
David DeGroot
Editor’s note
While Stabroek News did not mention President Jagdeo by name as being the first at the Caribbean government level to register dissatisfaction with clauses in the EPA, it was clear from the editorial that the Government of Guyana, which President Jagdeo heads, was the first to do so, viz:
“The Government of Guyana which, as last December came and went seemed to be in an isolated position [in rejecting the EPA], has now been joined by others, including [the] governments of St Lucia and Grenada…”
As for the “significance of the action adopted by President Jagdeo,” the editorial was not about passing judgement in favour of one side or the other, but in explaining how the debate over the signing of the EPA has evolved in the region and why the Government of Barbados has regarded it as necessary to summon a special meeting of Caricom heads to discuss the matter. Had the editorial been directed at making a case for or against, then Mr DeGroot would have been at liberty to criticize any conclusions arrived at. In the absence of any conclusions, however, it is not for him to dictate to this newspaper what line an editorial should take.
