Dear Editor,
I write in response to the Stabroek News article, (03.04.2020) captioned, `US Ambassador: Statements on Guyana elections are defence of ‘bedrock’ principles’.
In my long sojourn in Guyanese politics that span more than five decades, I have not engaged foreign diplomats on their country’s position on any political issue in Guyana or the region. My attitude was guided by my judgement that I am not a member of the national political elite that have the ear and attention of these external powers. However, I am forced to express my concern with the US Ambassador’s recent statement that her country’s position on Guyana elections is based on “‘bedrock’ principles.” Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch said many things which are truths depending on where one stands politically. As a political activist, most of my life has been a fight for free and fair elections, and elections free from fear. And against racial domination in society. Neither of the two goals have been achieved in Guyana. The failure to attain these goals is partly due to our own shortcomings, and partly due to the dictates of foreign powers, namely the UK, US, EU, Canada and the Soviet Union/Russia.
Ambassador Lynch is quoted as saying, “In this context, silence breaks an oath I took. In serious and soaring language, I swore to ‘bear true faith and allegiances’ to the Constitution of the United States, and it is in this document where these bedrock principles stand solidly for me.” It is important to note that the Ambassador reduces her government’s position on our election crisis to her personal commitment to the US constitution and her oath rather than her carrying out the instructions of the State Department of the United States. I assumed that she was demonstrating a new element, in what she termed, “good diplomacy”.
Ambassador Lynch further states: “Indeed, 11 of the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution address voting rights, electoral issues, or matters of succession by our representatives”. “ .. the international extension of these principles is present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. …Article 21 underscores that, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. “ “… that it makes clear that the `will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.’”
While these declarations sound impressive it would have been politically more useful if the Ambassador had prefaced her remarks with a criticism of her country’s known history on these matters in Latin America and Guyana during the ”cold war”. It is the US policy of that period that shaped in a major way our electoral history. So for her to lecture us on elections and democracy is questionable.
I need no convincing on the noble role played by America as a nation to human advancements political, social, and economic and human rights. But this has not been a perfect march and it took centuries. America moved from a constitution that legally enslaved Africans, and even after the war for independence, and later after the Civil War, Africans were not allowed the right to vote, and women won that right much later. We all know as well the racist system of “Jim Crow” that legally reduced African Americans and other groups to third-class citizenship. My reason for making these points is to remind the nation and Ambassador Lynch that her country’s democratic path was a bumpy road full of contradictions.
I am aware of the importance the US government, Congress and people attach to elections, good governance, democracy and human rights after the end of the cold war. In general, I support these tenets of human and international relations. But these have to be seen in the context of a country’s history and stage of development. And in this regard elections and democracy, if it means, or will lead to the political exclusion of Africans from governance in Guyana, and our economic marginalization – we reject those notions. We do so conscious of centuries of enslavement, which result in loss of collective community wealth. Elections and democracy under those conditions are counterproductive to the human rights of Africans and Guyana’s cohesive development.
As a nationalist and a patriot, I have condemned the undiplomatic behaviour demonstrated by foreign government representatives and international observers, during the Region 4 tabulations of statements of poll and thereafter. It was clear that there was an overreach by both diplomats and observers, their intent seems to be a change in government, rather than being neutral and objective referees in our election process. Their conduct whatever the motive was an affront to the Guyanese nation. And for me, national independence is of greater importance than election results that open the door to racial domination.
Having said the above I wish to make it clear that I stand with the President and Leader of the opposition for a recount of all votes, from regions one to four, supervised by Caricom. I also support calls for the formation of a national government based on power-sharing despite which party wins the elections.
In closing, I wish to ask US Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch for a public assurance to the Guyanese nation that her country’s present attitude and involvement in our election crisis is not driven by its Venezuela policy and linked to the re-election of President Donald Trump in the November Elections. As a Guyanese, I have a great suspicion that her government’s diplomacy (if it can be called so) in relation to Guyana is driven by the need to have access to our land, sea and air space for military operations against Venezuela. Ambassador, I hope you will appreciate the anxiety of the Guyanese nation in this dangerous geopolitical adventure as US warships are heading to Venezuela.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
