Dear Editor,
I was slightly taken aback by Mr Hamilton Green’s objection to GECOM having discussions with the Carter Center (SN: 21/3/2019) I for one was heartened by the involvement of such a reputable body that invested so much in Guyana.
In looking for a reason for the icon’s “considerable unhappiness,” I will avoid going back to the outcome of the 1992 election in which the Carter Center was the main outside broker. Nor will I dwell on the street protest Mr Green led that caused the former U.S. president to fear for his life. The rift that immediately followed between Mr Green and outgoing President Hoyte – that too I will not talk about.
Suffice to say, Mr Green might still hold some grudge against the Carter Center because of these happenings. His characterising the Center as “a group with roots in the deep south of the United States” lends credence to this view.
What I want to address is the notion that seeking outside guidance and advice “is an anathema not only to our independence, but an assault on our dignity as a free people.” When you limit the formulation of solutions to our own people, you run the very risks that are endemic in our society. For example, Mr Green cited old soldiers such as Eusi Kwayana, Ashton Chase, and Sase Narine whose wisdom and experience could be tapped. I fail to see what the last name is doing alongside the first two names. I think Mr Green is forcing a racial balance in his triumvirate, making the very mistake we as Guyanese are prone to. Hence, the need for fresh outside help from honourable people and institutions that are not locally involved.
While we all agree that our “principal political leaders must sit and craft an agenda and agreements to address the deep fears and apprehensions of the Afro and Indo communities,” we must always remember that their very existence is to oppose, oppose, and oppose. That is their raison d’être and modus operandi. And with the general population, all are involved, all are consumed, no man is neutral. For these reasons, arbitrational assistance from neutral outside institutions should be most welcome.
Anyone readily opposed to such a pursuit can only be suspect of having something underhand in mind. Others are genuinely against outside contact on the grounds of maintaining our sovereignty. Those need to be reminded that it is not unilateral intervention from outside. It is on our request, done in exercise of that very sovereignty we have. Do we sit on our sovereignty or use it as a cushion to reach for the stars? After independence and sovereignty, there are higher states of being. Engaging the outside lends credence to our motive, gives respectability to our decision, and raises our standing in the world family. In other words, greater than sovereignty is magnanimity.
One last point. I was surprised too that the Jagan/Burnham embrace 53 years ago when the Union Jack was lowered and the Golden Arrowhead raised, was seen as a “hope for unity and a new day surged.” I was there, and to me that was just a passing thing, involuntary, done on the spur-of-the-moment for the photo op, meaning nothing and signifying nothing at all.
Finally, I hope I have not come across too critically of Mr Green in this letter. He is a national icon who contributed to Guyana’s history as much as any other hero. When he was awarded a national honour a few years ago, I honestly thought that the honour itself was more honoured by him, the honouree.
Yours faithfully,
P. D. Sharma
Los Angeles, CA
