THE U.S. military invasion of Panama is unjustifiable. It is particularly tragic that it comes at a time when the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty in Eastern Europe has been disavowed by Mr. Gorbachev and major reform there is on the agenda and has been welcomed by the Soviet Union.
This action suggests that the USA has not come to terms with the need to re-orient its own attitudes towards Latin America and the Caribbean and still feels free to intervene when it sees fit and to play a hegemonic role in the region. This is not in keeping with Mr. Bush’s general push towards detente and an end of the cold war. It will give succour to hardliners in both camps who are not happy with this process.
General Manuel Noriega has been rightly ostracised for his role as a drug dealer, and for his squashing of democratic elections in Panama in May this year when he was voted out of power. Indeed his entire political career does not bear scrutiny and his government was clearly illegitimate. He was a political pariah. But America cannot assume the role of policeman of the hemisphere. This is an unfortunate reversion to older methods.
The vicious regimes of Pol Pot and Idi Amin were, it is true, removed by the intervention of neighbouring states to the general approval of most people. But when a superpower such as the USA intervenes in its self-proclaimed backyard to depose a dictator that it originally nurtured, that is a horse of a different colour.
In this case, the excuse that the American soldiers were sent in to restore democracy rings hollow in the light of America’s long standing relationships with other dictatorships in the region. This was an act of realpolitik based on its perceived security interests.
Examples of interventions in other countries, overt or covert, do not suggest that the government of President Guillermo Endara, sworn in early on Wednesday, will face an easy future even though it may have been legitimately elected in May. It would probably be prudent for it to call elections as soon as the situation is sufficiently stable and the American soldiers return to their base.
We believe fervently in an open, democratic society and in the internal American heritage of democracy but it has never been possible to install democracy by devious means or at the point of a gun.
Motion for Greater Dialogue Approved
Before the 97th sitting of the National Assembly could swing into motion last Wednesday Speaker Sase Narain evicted television cameras belonging to Guyana Television (GTV). The cameras were already in place and about to begin clicking when the Speaker ordered them out.
Permission had reportedly been granted by the deputy Clerk of the Assembly. Mr. Narain said this was not good enough.
The first motion up for consideration dealt with a WPA call for greater dialogue and consultations on issues of importance. The mover, Mr. Kwayana, said that Guyana has a ‘supreme need for national reconciliation.’
He said that problems such as the high infant mortality rate, management of national assets, declining real income and the border “dispute had to be managed. A multi-party consensus had to be reached on these issues.
He said as far as the WPA was concerned it was undignified to go beyond particular levels of co-operation with the government under existing circumstances. He outlined areas where dialogue should be held with the government.
Among these were democratisation, freedoms of speech, worship and religion, electoral rules, education, divestment and mining and gold policies.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Reepu Daman Persaud of the PPP who said his party has always advocated consultation and the intermittent need for dialogue. He said that the government has not carried the populace with it and warned that ‘time is not on our side.’ He continued that there was deepening frustration and impatience coupled with increasing migration and something had to be done to remedy the problems of the country.
On the government’s behalf, Deputy Prime Minister Haslyn Parris said the government would support the motion but he hastened to say that lest the impression be gotten that government was reluctant to engage in dialogue the record should be set straight. Guyana, he said, belonged to all the people and the government had always promoted dialogue with interested parties.
He said that the same people who were calling for talks were the ones who had previously ‘thwarted efforts at dialogue.’ He said that currently there were fora at which such dialogue could take place for example the President’s Advisory Group on the Private Sector. The opposition, he said, has not made use of these…
He invited the opposition to attend the next session of Parliament to discuss the questions of divestment, investment and the McIntyre report at which time he will move three motions dealing with these issues.
He supported the original motion but opposed the amendment proposed by Mr Kwayana that sought to add ‘political associations’ to the category of groups with which the government should have consultations. Mr. Kwayana subsequently withdrew the amendment and the motion was unanimously passed.
The Annual Report of the Ministry of Education and Social Development was presented by Minister Deryck Bernard. There was also the first reading of the President’s College Bill 1989.
Call Me Mister
By GUN ROCKLIFFE
THE Official Gazette 17th June, 1969 and that of the ensuing week were landmarks in the sphere of titular address, at least for those entrapped in the Public Service of Guyana. On that first date, the hallowed titles of ‘Mr.’ and ‘Mrs’ made way for the more seasonal ‘Comrade” which, with varying degrees of acceptance, was inflicted upon the unwary in the issue of the 14th and ever thereafter. The abbreviation ‘Cde’ was calmly accepted by a few of older vintage who under the colonial system could not rate a C.B.E. behind the surname and gladly settled for the admittedly less exotic ‘Cde’ before it.
And then on the 19th July, 1975 the Gazette came better with the explanatory term (f.m.) or (f.s.) after the surname, the letter ‘f’ to establish femininity and the other to distinguish between those blessed by matrimony and such as managed to escape that blissful status. One happy socialist family, or that was the general ideal.
Many of us were slow to recognize the strategic advantage in employing this comradely shibboleth when seeking favour or even ordinary service from a political functionary or governmental agency. We even tolerated its broad pronunciation of ‘cumraad’ which was either a bi-syllabic excuse for failure in servile duty or a description of a citizen acceptable of the Party.
Of course, you can trust the insidious capitalists to barge in and ruin our little native sport. CLICO, Reynolds, ALCAN, Golden Star, Paranapanema and now Atlantic Telecommunications Network are set upon inciting social confusion of disturbing proportions as we address their officials and our own business letters. But the unkindest cut comes from our brothers in Eastern Europe who compel us to re-think and re-set the Gazetteth type of 1975 as we address and describe our sectoral brothers, both public and private. As you frame your kindly invitations for 1990 you’re absolutely free to shake off the old ‘Comrade and Mrs’ or ‘Comrade and spouse’ and if I’m on your list, well, just call me Mister.
