THE OAS HAS COMPROMISED ITSELF
DEAR EDITOR,
The recent Press Release emanating from the OAS is a clear indication that the organisation has compromised its self and was never and will not be an impartial observer in the Guyana election process.
It is important to note that the press release heaped criticisms on GECOM’S CEO, noting among other things, that “Guyana’s Chief Election Officer, Mr. Keith Loweinfield’s proposed 156 days duration for the recount of votes cast in the general elections last month”. The Opposition Leader’s good friend Mr. Bruce Golding did not mention that the 156 days proposal is a direct result of the PPPC demand that the Commissioners from both parties must be present at each counting station and therefore there will only be three counting stations thus the need for 156 days. He was too busy parroting the PPPC’s position.
The partisan Mr. Golding, went further and called for the removal of persons he consider to be impartial from the recount process. Interestingly, he did not call for the removal off the two biased PPPC controlled ROs in Districts 3 and 6, among others. He is selective in removing people based on impartiality. It is known that Mr. Golding is aware of the skullduggery that these ROs were involved in. What is evident is Mr. Golding is singing from the PPP song sheet.
Guyanese are not fooled. They are aware that Golding who resigned in disgrace as Prime Minister of Jamaica after seeking to protect a drug lord in Jamaica from extradition to the USA is neither impartial nor decent. In fact, his closeness to Jagdeo lends to the adage that birds of a feather flock together.
The involvement of the OAS as observers in elections in recent times has raised many eyebrows since they appear to be biased and do not operate as impartial observers. Hence, many Guyanese continue to express concerns about the OAS’ Mission’s improper behaviour in the recently concluded elections in Guyana. Guyanese are adamant that they should not be involved in observing the forensic audit of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional elections to be held shortly. The Government of Guyana should take note and think long and hard before inviting them to observe the recount process.
The OAS, by its various actions and inactions prior to elections day, and in the days and weeks that followed, proved itself to be biased in favour of the political opposition the PPP/C and its business front the Private Sector Commission (PSC). The OAS has shed itself of any appearance of impartiality and fair play.
Prior to the OAS arrival in Guyana, the leaked contract signed between Mercury Public Affairs (the controversial Washington-based lobbying firm which is alleged to have interfered with the US 2016 elections) and the PPP/C, indicates that OAS personnel were approached and indoctrinated against the APNU/AFC Government of Guyana by Mercury lobbyists, and therefore approached the Guyana elections with an implicit prejudicial stance against the APNU/AFC.
Under the heading (“Services”) that said contract notes (inter alia) that the “Consultant will provide strategic consulting and management services specific to issues facing the Client in the areas of government relations and issues management. The Services shall include, but are not limited to, representing the Client before, and arranging meetings with the Executive Branch of the Congress of the United States, the Organization of American States, and think-tanks in connection with issues relating to the anticipated general and regional elections to take place in the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.” The foregoing suggests that the OAS was conditioned against the government long before it came to “observe” the elections. This is coupled with the fact that Mr. Bruce Golding, a house guest and friend of the Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo was chosen as head of the OAS Mission to observe the Guyana elections. It is therefore logical to conclude that the OAS should do the decent thing and recuse itself from the process since it has ompromised itself.
It is no secret that the PPP/C has been harping the false narrative of election rigging by the APNU/AFC both locally and internationally long before an elections date was announced. The fact that the OAS was fed this narrative by Mercury absolves it of any claims to impartiality, and therefore cannot be trusted even in the face of a well-defined supervisory role/s in the upcoming forensic audit of the March 2nd General and Regional Elections.
In addition to its pre-arrival prejudices, the actions of the OAS on arrival in Guyana further substantiate the claims of its favoritism towards the PPP/C. Its deviations from the fundamental principles of objectivity, impartiality and neutrality, which are hallmarks of International Electoral Observer Missions must, and, shall not be overlooked.
In commenting on the electoral process in Guyana in its March 3rd statement, the OAS Secretariat stated that “… The mission commended the electoral authorities of Guyana on an orderly and well executed voting process.” Subsequent to this declaration, the credibility of the OAS began to decline further.
Despite allegations and complaints of irregularities committed by PPPC operatives (including demands for recount) by the APNU/AFC vis-à-vis several electoral Districts including Districts 2, 3, and 6, no mention, enquiries, or strong statements of condemnation were made by the OAS.
The OAS was however quick to jump on the PPP/Cs false bandwagon of rigging and irregularities in Region 4 allegedly perpetrated by APNU/AFC commissioners acting in cahoots with GECOM personnel. This is a false allegation. This bias is vivid in its March 13, Press Release, where the OAS noted that “tabulation of the Statements of Poll (SOPs) in the other nine regions was carried out in compliance with the law and no dispute has arisen in relation to the declaration of results.” This is a blatant lie, since the other regions were done by spreadsheets and not by Statements of Poll as requested of Region 4.
The OAS’ disdain and disrespect for GECOM, should also not be ignored. The said March 13 Press Release demonstrates that the OAS was not interested in documents emanating from this duly constituted agency responsible for the conduct of elections in Guyana. Their reliance on, and use of, SOPs acquired from the PPP/C rather than from GECOM exemplifies this fact. Its position that “images of the Statements of Poll published by the PPP/Civic, on its website, which it claims were given to its polling agents after the ballots were counted at each polling station on the night of the elections, produce a result that is vastly different from that being declared by the Returning Officer and would have a decisive effect on the outcome of the national election…” is prejudicial and inciting given that the authenticity of the PPP/Cs statements of poll are highly questionable. That OAS statement bore implications for the legitimacy of the process and contravenes the mandate of the OAS mission of objectivity. We shall not have it!
The impartiality of the OAS is also questioned when one considers its lack of condemnation of post-elections violence perpetrated by acknowledged supporters of the PPP/C on assumed supporters and objects of the APNU/AFC. The OAS is yet to issue a statement on the violent attacks on the innocent school children of Region 5 and the destruction of school buses. It is yet to pronounce on video-recorded violent attacks on officers of the law and medical personnel by opposition supporters. Furthermore, the OAS’ failure to call on the leaders of the PPP/C to renounce these acts of violence against innocent Guyanese citizens further solidifies the claims of OAS’ bias in favor of the opposition.
Even further, the OAS’ silence on the storming of the GECOM’s Command Centre by members of opposition political parties who interrupted the tabulation process of the District 4 votes in their (the OAS’) presence makes it worthy of future distrust. We must not encourage their presence in the upcoming recount!
Finally, lest we forget the role played by the OAS in the Bolivian elections last year. The OAS’ claims of fake tally sheets and forged signatures (allegations which were subsequently deemed false and engineered) paved the way for the downfall of the democratically elected president, as well as the post-elections violence and instability which currently exist in that country. This should be avoided in Guyana and one sure way to do so is to ensure the presence of genuine observers and avoid those like the OAS who have compromised themselves.
Guyana shall not be another Bolivia!
Regards
Ganesh Mahipaul
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_17_2020