Not
a question of crime
THE
political parties of Guyana must know that Guyanese would not
welcome the
extradition of any Guyanese citizen
who provided
significant support to the State, since it came under siege by
criminals and militants, operating out of Buxton with the unbridled
allegiance of a certain opposition party, some in the police and
army, and certain prominent Black personalities.
Since
the March 2001 general elections, I have chronicled the violence in
Guyana, especially as it relates to racial and political issues. One
is aptly aware of the arguments, moral, ethical, and otherwise
regarding the crime situation.
What
is being witnessed today is not a question of crime, but a challenge
to the very concept of “government” in Guyana. Given the
strenuous efforts being made by some in our security forces and
their colleagues-in-arms to destroy a certain individual, it is
fitting to restate a few facts.
When
Black policemen were being gunned down by the Black
criminals-militants, when Black women inside Buxton were being
gang-raped and impregnated by the so-called Black “freedom
fighters,” when Black families inside Buxton that resisted this
campaign of violence were treated with fire and gunshot, when the
very sovereignty of the Republic shuddered under this collective
violence, certain “businessmen” confronted this unjustified
revolt head-on.
During
this time, the much celebrated “people’s army” maintained by
taxpayers’ money, became static as it was already compromised
along Afro-centric lines. While the ruling party (PPP/C) struggled
to arrest the plummeting situation, the primary opposition (PNCR)
watched safely, refusing to aid the State, partially because
primarily Indian people, its traditional non-supporters, were being
raped, robbed, executed, and chased from their homes and villages in
various exoduses.
Further,
it sought to counter-produce progressive developments, by arguing
against the deployment of the military against the seditious
militants. Only when the violence overlapped in unprecedented
manners that threatened the very interests of the PNCR, did the
party surface — in letter columns. There is credible documentation
of all of this.
Whatever
is the U.S. position in Guyana, Guyanese cannot begrudge them their
interests. Yet, Guyanese must guard against division among our
peoples to serve U.S. interests.
Historically,
we still suffer from such an unholy experience. If the U.S.
Government is intent on fostering a government “by the people and
for the people” (e.g., power-sharing), let it be said that from
today, whatever form of government is implemented, must be coupled
with an immediate and necessary restructuring of the army.
No
country can afford an army that exhibits self-destructive
tendencies. An army that stands against the people is an army that
would murder the people. One hopes that the notable advocates of
power-sharing understand this.
Secondly,
the advocacy for the extradition of any Guyanese who prevented the
fall of the State must be preceded by the deliverance of the
“masterminds” responsible for plotting sedition against the
people and exercising rebellion against the Republic.
While
one is reminded that the current regime, however allegedly corrupt
or inept is still a legally elected government, all must remember
that Guyana is not the property of any party or people, but of all
parties and all peoples. Any show of arms against an elected
government, therefore, is an unlawful exhibition against Guyana and
all of its peoples.
To
those who ask that we uphold the law of the Federal Republic of the
United States, we request that they in same fashion uphold the law
of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
While
Guyanese understand the concerns of the Americans over the security
of America, the Americans must likewise understand the concerns of
the Guyanese over the security of Guyana.
As
such, the “masterminds” must be prosecuted for the endless list
of murders, kidnappings, rapes, and other human rights violation
committed under their leadership.
Having
heard from the PNCR MP Debra Backer that the PNCR only has interest
in a government made legal by the ballot box, one is elated at such
libertine rhetoric. But libertine rhetoric is often a disguise for
doublespeak rabble in Guyana.
Therefore,
the PNCR should explain its position as espoused during the height
of the 2002 militant-criminals’ campaign of violence; which is
that the PNCR intends to “oppose, expose, and depose” the PPP/C
regime.
One
recognizes that in a violent climate, the word “depose” (instead
of “replace”) sends volatile signals to the public which
includes gunmen and “masterminds.” Thus far, there has
been no reversal of this position.
In
light of recent supposed revelations, it seems like a repeat of the
sixties. This very slogan of 2002 was associated with the UF-PNC-CIA
disturbances (1961) against the Jagan regime of 1961-1964. It was a
favourite of Mr. Peter D’Aguiar, one of two key players, the other
being the leader of the PNC, Forbes Burnham, who colluded with U.S.
interests to oust the PPP regime.
Before
I conclude, the PNCR should tell the nation what is its position on
Article 98 (2), under the Rome Treaty, which offers U.S. nationals
(including servicemen) accused of crimes, immunity from being handed
over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), or tried in Guyanese
courts.
For
its being bullied into signing the treaty in 2003, Guyana received
some 27 refurbished army trucks, and a few buildings built by U.S.
soldiers. The PNCR should explain to the public what would be its
recourse should, say, a young Black woman, a PNCR supporter, be
raped by an American serviceman?
I
end by saying that there is no law against standing up for those who
dared and stood up.
RAKESH RAMPERTAB
Monday,
May 15, 2006 |