Dear Editor,
Mr Ralph Ramkarran’s letter that was published in the online edition of Stabroek News (SN) on Saturday July 9, captioned ‘It was the mistakes of the WPA that were fatal to the building of a progressive alliance’, was in response to one penned by me, which appeared in SN on July 7, under the caption ‘After meeting State Department officials Jagan had no more interest in a PCD agreement to contest the elections’. While I found Mr Ramkarran’s response to be disappointing, I was however not surprised by it. Mr Ramkarran, in his letter seems to be comfortable with not directly responding to issues I have raised, but prefers instead to misrepresent facts as a way of justifying positions he assumes. This approach is designed to confuse readers on issues.
In his letter Mr Ramkarran said, “Mr Ogunseye’s innuendo that the US warned off Jagan from a PCD government, and that Jagan took the warning is fanciful.” Nowhere in my letter did I state or, seek to give the impression, that the US State Department’s invitation to Dr Jagan was premised on the understanding that there should be no PCD agreement to contest the 1992 elections and the formation of a PCD government. What I said was that after Jagan returned from the State Department meeting he and the PPP had no more interest in a PCD ticket to contest the elections. I also stated what I felt was responsible for Dr Jagan and the PPP’s new approach to the talks. I wrote, “This new approach by the PPP in my view was influenced by the fact that the US had informed Jagan that they had no issues with his presidential run”. That was my opinion on what had eventuated at the talks between Dr Jagan and the State Department officials. It will be recalled, Editor, that in my letter I had asked Mr Ramkarran to be helpful and say if the meeting with the US officials was discussed in the PPP executive, and if yes, what was reported. Mr Ramkarran chose not to be helpful but continued his deception.
The point I had made in my letter which I reiterate here is that Dr Jagan’s successful meeting with the State Department officials gave him a strategic advantage in the PCD negotiations since he no longer had to worry about the US and ideological matters. The PPP operated from the premise that it could have won the elections on its own. Prior to the State Department talks the PPP’s interest in the PCD was intended (1) to alleviate US and Western governments’ concerns about the PPP’s communist history; and (2) to neutralize the response of the African masses and the military to a PPP victory. My contention is that Jagan’s meeting with US officials resolved the above for Dr Jagan and the PPP. While the US’ embrace of its old Cold War foe in itself could not determine how the African masses would have responded to a Jagan victory, the PPP and Dr Jagan knew that given ‘real politics’, the African political and military leaderships would have been hard pressed to disregard the position of the US government.
Mr Ramkarran wrote, “The facts on the ground were that a formula for the list of candidates and post-election distribution of seats could not be agreed”. He advanced this as the reason for the ending of the PCD talks. I disagree with his contention. This was one of the reasons for the deadlock of the talks. The reason the talks ended or failed was the PPP and Dr Jagan’s refusal to honour the agreement that would have seen the resumption of negotiations after the bilateral between the parties.
On the issue of the WPA making mistakes in the talks, I am willing to concede that we did, but I refuse to accept Mr Ramkarran’s contention that our mistakes “were fatal to the building of a vibrant, liberal and progressive alliance and the emergence of a different brand of politics and post-Jagan PPP”. How ridiculous can one get? Mr Ramkarran is now blaming the WPA, not the PPP leadership, not the Civic component, but the WPA, for what the PPP became after the demise of Jagan. How ironic. The following are the mistakes I attribute to the WPA: (a) Having worked with the PPP for years both in and out of the PCD we erred in attributing to the PPP and Dr Jagan a degree of maturity and respect for allies’ independence, which proved to be misplaced in that party leadership; (b) Our failure to factor into the equation the USSR/ USA accommodation ending the Cold War – it is no longer a secret that in the negotiations between the then two super powers and Cold War foes that the USSR demanded and got concessions from the US in relation to Cuba and Jagan’s PPP.
My final point is this: Mr Ramkarran argued in his letter that “It is wholly inaccurate to suggest that the PPP had to rely on the WPA’s support to obtain an absolute majority in the National Assembly. An examination of the evidence will reveal this”. This is another example of deception. At no time in this debate did I use the term “absolute majority”. What I said was that the PPP achieved parliamentary comfort from its alliance with the WPA in Region 8 meaning, that the PPP was now in a position to pass the budget without having to negotiate with the PNC. Mr Ralph Ramkarran was once the Speaker of the National Assembly and is more than knowledgeable on these matters. In trying to be unduly clever in his response to me Mr Ramkarran he has run himself into great difficulties.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
