– Opposition needs time to scrutinise further

Although the second reading of the New Education Bill was initially proposed for today in the National Assembly, this much anticipated undertaking has been deferred.

According to Minister of Education Priya Manickchand the development represents part of her effort to honour a request from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU’) s Shadow Minister, Ms. Amna Ally.
Manickchand disclosed yesterday that “I have been asked by the Shadow Minister of Education that we put it off a little bit so that they (APNU) can have more time to look at it.”

The Education Minister, who was at the time addressing a gathering at the National Centre for Educational Resource Development (NCERD), informed that “I have agreed to put it off, I think until the next sitting of Parliament, which should be soon and so we won’t be debating it tomorrow (today).”
The Bill is one designed to address, among other things, the quality of education at all levels, even within public and private educational institutions. It is therefore intended to repeal and replace the archaic Education Act currently in existence. It was crafted following consultations with stakeholders across the country, and therefore seeks to reform the legal framework of education in Guyana, and provide an effective system of education related to the needs of the people.

And since Article 149H (1) of the Constitution mandates that every child is entitled to free primary and secondary education in schools owned or funded by the State, the Bill makes provision for such a realisation which is however, subjected “to available resources of the State and the availability of educational facilities to all persons in Guyana.”
Also contained in the Bill are provisions for ensuring free education to all persons and a component that speaks to quality education at all levels, both in public as well as private schools, and other educational institutions in Guyana.
Further still, the Bill is outfitted with a component to cater to the strengthening of the existing school management system so that it allows for the maximum participation of parents and teachers in the management of schools.
The Bill which also provides for the disciplining of children in the school environment, is being touted as a mechanism that contains measures that will “ensure for the benefit of children, enhancing their talents, mental and physical and ensuring a rounded education in all schools.”

And Minister Manickchand told the gathering at NCERD yesterday that the Education Bill is premised on a common theme which emphasises “how we can make our system practical and useful while making sure that we are catering for a modern Guyana as against what the previous Bill catered for.”
The first reading of the Bill was done at the previous sitting of Parliament; an undertaking that comes at a time “when a lot of things are happening in Education,” according to the Education Minister. She made a point of noting yesterday that the Bill is the first whole education legislation that has been proposed since Guyana gained its independence in 1966.

Currently, the Education Ministry is in the process of finalising its Strategic Plan which will guide its work for the next five years. The previous Strategic Plan expired last year, having spanned the period 2008-2013.
It is expected that the Strategic Plan currently under construction will be published shortly, according to the Education Minister.  “Our entire theme will be on focusing on how do we make sure our children are learning, and becoming the kinds of practical citizens that Guyana needs to take our development to the next level?”
Moreover, Manickchand noted that “all of what we are doing in that plan – everything in Literacy, Science, Mathematics and Special Needs Education – all the areas we are focused on will be on improving our learning outcomes.”

And according to the Minister too “we are excitedly working on that so that we can finish it shortly and expose to the nation and education partners exactly what is going to happen in the Ministry of Education over the next five years.”

 

 

 

Source: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2014/07/10/second-reading-of-new-proposed-education-legislation-deferred/

…As Education Ministry continues national consultations

 

Parents of children attending public schools are likely to access the $10,000 grant that was assured by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, in the 2014 national budget, by mid-September.
This disclosure was made yesterday by Minister of Education, Priya Manickchand, who spoke at a number of consultations in Region Two.

The Minister, who was accompanied by a number of top officials from Central Ministry and regional education officials, also saw the need to clarify the misconception that one $10,000 grant will be awarded per household.
Manickchand explained that a grant of $10,000 will be awarded per child in a household even if there are 10 children in that household.
“It is not one $10,000 per child, so a mother with 10 children can be sure that she will be receiving $100,000 for her children,” the Minister told the gathering who attended the consultations.
The Minister however, noted that while cash will be the primary mode of paying out the grant, persons will also be allowed their payment in vouchers if they so desire.
Nevertheless, the consultations saw a unanimous call for the payment to be made in cash.
Although some parents were optimistic that they would be able to access the endowment ahead of the start of the school term, the Minister noted that a decision was taken to delay the payment since a number of children would have been disenfranchised.
According to the Minister, as many as 10,000 children are expected to start school in September, and based on the law, until they start school at the beginning of the term, they will not be counted as children attending school.
Consultations were yesterday held across the Essequibo Coast with the education team targeting 45 schools over the course of the day at the following locations: Anna Regina Secondary, Charity Primary, 8th of May Secondary, Sparta Primary, Taymouth Manor Primary, Abram Zuil Secondary, Suddie Primary, Huis’t Dieren Primary and Aurora Primary.
Residents turned out in their numbers at each session to hear the Minister speak on a number of issues including the importance of parental support in the schooling process.
The Minister just last week was involved in a similar consultation at the Golden Grove Primary school on the East Coast of Demerara, which also saw a grand turnout.

TAKING ADVANTAGE
But the Minister during her deliberations yesterday condemned forthcoming allegations that some merchants have been taking advantage of parents who seek to utilise the Ministry-allocated uniform vouchers at their establishments.
Reports out of Region Two suggest that a small number of merchants have been upping the prices of their products during the period that uniform vouchers are issued.
The action was yesterday described as “unscrupulous” by the Minister, who warned that the Ministry will deal “condignly” with such businesses.
In fact, she noted, that the Ministry is prepared to sever ties with any and all businesses found to be engaged in the practice of fleecing parents shopping with the aid of the vouchers.

Developmental Growth
The consultations also saw the Minister speaking about the economic growth of the country which she pointed out has been consistent over eight consecutive years.
This, according to her, has allowed for significant development in education which has been getting immense financial attention from Government.
And this is evident the Minister told the gathering by the allocation of the largest chunk of the $220 Billion national budget this year. The education sector was this year allocated $32.3 Billion which has allowed for equity in education on a national scale.
The Minister recalled that in the past the country’s top performers were mainly from the capital city, but now that trend has changed.
The Minister observed that in recent years it was students from Essequibo who were not only the top national performers but top regional performers at the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examination.

GENUINE SUPPORT
Although the Education Minister has in recent days been condemned in some factions regarding her blistering remarks during the pre-celebration of the United States Independence Day at the US Ambassador’s resident’s last week, the Minister certainly got a great deal of support in Region Two.
The Minister at the pre-celebration lashed at the Ambassador for meddling in the affairs of the country even insisting that “the Ambassador’s behaviour is unacceptable.” The Minister was loudly booed and heckled during her speech.
Residents attending the consultations were however very vocal in their support and there were bouts of applause when the matter was discussed yesterday. Some residents were even keen on highlighting that they were proud of the Minister’s stance.

 

 

 

Source: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2014/07/09/parents-to-get-10000-grant-in-cash-minister-manickchand-informs/

Parents of children attending public schools are likely to access the $10,000 grant that was assured by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, in the 2014 national budget, by mid-September.
This disclosure was made yesterday by Minister of Education, Priya Manickchand, who spoke at a number of consultations in Region Two.
The Minister, who was accompanied by a number of top officials from Central Ministry and regional education officials, also saw the need to clarify the misconception that one $10,000 grant will be awarded per household.
Manickchand explained that a grant of $10,000 will be awarded per child in a household even if there are 10 children in that household.
“It is not one $10,000 per child, so a mother with 10 children can be sure that she will be receiving $100,000 for her children,” the Minister told the gathering who attended the consultations.
The Minister however, noted that while cash will be the primary mode of paying out the grant, persons will also be allowed their payment in vouchers if they so desire.
Nevertheless, the consultations saw a unanimous call for the payment to be made in cash.
Although some parents were optimistic that they would be able to access the endowment ahead of the start of the school term, the Minister noted that a decision was taken to delay the payment since a number of children would have been disenfranchised.
According to the Minister, as many as 10,000 children are expected to start school in September, and based on the law, until they start school at the beginning of the term, they will not be counted as children attending school.
Consultations were yesterday held across the Essequibo Coast with the education team targeting 45 schools over the course of the day at the following locations: Anna Regina Secondary, Charity Primary, 8th of May Secondary, Sparta Primary, Taymouth Manor Primary, Abram Zuil Secondary, Suddie Primary, Huis’t Dieren Primary and Aurora Primary.
Residents turned out in their numbers at each session to hear the Minister speak on a number of issues including the importance of parental support in the schooling process.
The Minister just last week was involved in a similar consultation at the Golden Grove Primary school on the East Coast of Demerara, which also saw a grand turnout.

TAKING ADVANTAGE
But the Minister during her deliberations yesterday condemned forthcoming allegations that some merchants have been taking advantage of parents who seek to utilise the Ministry-allocated uniform vouchers at their establishments.
Reports out of Region Two suggest that a small number of merchants have been upping the prices of their products during the period that uniform vouchers are issued.
The action was yesterday described as “unscrupulous” by the Minister, who warned that the Ministry will deal “condignly” with such businesses.
In fact, she noted, that the Ministry is prepared to sever ties with any and all businesses found to be engaged in the practice of fleecing parents shopping with the aid of the vouchers.

Developmental Growth
The consultations also saw the Minister speaking about the economic growth of the country which she pointed out has been consistent over eight consecutive years.
This, according to her, has allowed for significant development in education which has been getting immense financial attention from Government.
And this is evident the Minister told the gathering by the allocation of the largest chunk of the $220 Billion national budget this year. The education sector was this year allocated $32.3 Billion which has allowed for equity in education on a national scale.
The Minister recalled that in the past the country’s top performers were mainly from the capital city, but now that trend has changed.
The Minister observed that in recent years it was students from Essequibo who were not only the top national performers but top regional performers at the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examination.

GENUINE SUPPORT
Although the Education Minister has in recent days been condemned in some factions regarding her blistering remarks during the pre-celebration of the United States Independence Day at the US Ambassador’s resident’s last week, the Minister certainly got a great deal of support in Region Two.
The Minister at the pre-celebration lashed at the Ambassador for meddling in the affairs of the country even insisting that “the Ambassador’s behaviour is unacceptable.” The Minister was loudly booed and heckled during her speech.
Residents attending the consultations were however very vocal in their support and there were bouts of applause when the matter was discussed yesterday. Some residents were even keen on highlighting that they were proud of the Minister’s stance.

 

 

Source: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2014/07/09/parents-to-get-10000-grant-in-cash-minister-manickchand-informs/

SPEAKING out in defence of democracy in an independent country is the right of every patriot, be it a minister of government or a civilian citizen. In this case, it was the then Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Priya Manickchand, citing US Ambassador Brent Hardt for “crossing the red line” for interfering in the internal political affairs of Guyana, which is an independent sovereign state with a constitution and a democratically elected government.
The Women’s Progressive Organization joins with all patriotic and progressive minded Guyanese, locally and internationally to condemn the outgoing US Ambassador for meddling in the political affairs of Guyana throughout his tenure.
Why this Ambassador believed that he could design and implement his LEAD Project in Guyana without consulting the Government of Guyana? Why did he believe that he could speak ill of His Excellency, President Ramotar and everyone would remain silent? What gave him the right to demand that the government of Guyana hold local government elections? Who does he think he is to criticize the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, Clement Rohee.
Many of the so-called available critics were quick to opine that Minister Manickchand was wrong to go into the Ambassador’s house and admonish him. Where were all those critics during the past three years who turned a blind eye while that same Ambassador insulted this nation time and again?
Minister Manickchand was simply voicing the views of the majority of Guyanese people when she stated, without fear, that Guyanese will not sit idly by and listen to the dictates of the Ambassador who violated the protocols of his office by interfering in the political affairs of our country.
WPO would like to congratulate Minister Manickchand for courageously exposing the political subterfuge of the U.S. Ambassador amongst his colleagues and cronies.
Minister Manickchand was within her right when she defended Guyana’s sovereignity and His Excellency, Donald Ramotar, President of Guyana.
WPO encourages the diplomatic community to use their offices to foster economic and political alliances for mutual cooperation between their countries and Guyana, and to discontinue all aspects of political interference aimed at creating further divide among Guyanese people. Guyana and Guyanese have suffered enough because of external political interference and sabotage at every stage of its economic and political development.
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic Government created the environment that allows women to speak freely on issues. Therefore, no Ambassador will be allowed to speak ill of our country when patriotic and courageous women like Minister Manickchand are our representatives.

Alliance for Change (AFC) has once again engaged in maligning yet another woman, this time labelling Minister Manickchand as “Satira Gal” as part of its ongoing sexist and racist attack on women of this country.

In March 2013, a few days before International Women’s Day 2013, AFC used sexist and racist statements to malign Dr. Sharma, the Administrator of New Amsterdam Hospital. This kind of treatment was meted out to other Indian women of this country, such as Gitanjali Singh, Supreme Court Registrar Sita Ramlall, and recently Acting Town Clerk Carol Sooba.

Women in this country seem to be under threat from the gender bias and male chauvinistic leaders of AFC who seem to be functioning in the 16th century, when women had to know their place and speak only when they were spoken to. With this in mind, the gender bias leadership of the AFC should edify themselves on the benefits of a country where equality exists between men and women.

WPO would like to categorically state that it will not condone any further sexist or derogatory statements against the women of this country, and calls on the leadership of the AFC to retract its sexist statements against Minister Manickchand with immediate effect.

 

 

 

 

Source: https://guyanachronicle.com/2014/07/09/courageous-and-patriotic-is-the-woman-who-stood-up-for-her-country

IN respect to what may be described as a spat between the Guyana Administration and the former Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Brent Hardt, it is important to recognise that although Article 37 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is not without considerable relevance, this provision is not determinative. 

What is determinative is the customary rule of international law which precludes a diplomatic envoy from interfering in the domestic affairs of the receiving state, a primordial obligation encapsulated in Article 41.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1963) and also reflected in Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter.
It must be borne in mind that even though Article 8 of the Constitution establishes this instrument as the supreme law in Guyana, it is trite international law that the laws of a State may not be invoked as a ground for non-compliance with an international obligation: Article 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). As a matter of law, a State may not even invoke its Constitution as a ground for non-compliance with an international obligation: Article 13 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Rights and Duties of States.

In this context, reference may be made to Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th Edition, at p. 1068, where it is stated: “(i)t is universally recognised that envoys (or other diplomatic agents) must not interfere with the internal political life of the State to which they are accredited. It certainly belongs to their functions to watch political events with a vigilant eye, and to report their observations to their home State. But they have no right whatever to take part in that political life, to encourage one political party or to threaten another. It matters not whether an envoy acts thus on his own account or on the instructions from his home state. If he does so, he abuses his position, and the receiving state will either protest, or, in a more serious case, request his home state to recall him and appoint another individual in his place, or, if his interference is very flagrant, dismiss him”.

Oppenheim, an authoritative publicist on international law, further stated: “a line must, however, be drawn between functions which it is proper that a diplomatic mission may exercise, and those which it may not, although it has to be recognised that it is not always easy to draw such a line” (at p. 1067). Ambassador Brent Hardt was due to leave Guyana on July 6, 2014 on determination of his assignment to this country.

 

PROFESSOR JUSTICE DUKE POLLARD Department of Law University of Guyana

 

 

 

Source: https://guyanachronicle.com/2014/07/08/hardt-was-in-breach-of-the-vienna-convention

THE ruling party last Friday commended the acting Foreign Minister Priya Manickchand for delivering a “feral” blast to United States Ambassador to Guyana, Brent Hardt, condemning him for the “alarming” utterances that he made against the Government of Guyana.

The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) was speaking of the showdown between Hardt and the Government of Guyana last Wednesday evening at the commemoration of the 238th Independence Anniversary of the U.S. event, held at his Cummings Lodge residence.
Speaking at the symposium, in celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Detention of the Party’s Leaders, last Friday at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre (Red House), General-Secretary Clement Rohee said, “I recently saw on television another strong young woman… and as I was looking at her making her speech, I said to myself, ‘it is good to know that we have strong woman.’
“For Minister Priya Manickchand to stand up and to make a speech like that to the most powerful country in the world, she’s got to be a very strong person… I felt proud that the PPP has people like that…We still have people to stand up and speak on behalf of this country, represent this country and to defend this country,” he said.
Following Ambassador Hart’s contention that President Ramotar was party to a breach of Guyana’s Constitution for failing to give his required approval for the local government legislation, Minister Manickchand, an articulate and tough-talking Cabinet minister, accused him of having “crossed the red line.”
Manickchand said there is a red line in diplomatic relations, and Hardt had crossed that line. She made no bones about the fact that diplomatic relations demand a commitment to accuracy, referring to misconceptions peddled on the hosting of local government elections.

HYPOCRITICAL
At the event last Wednesday, Manickchand accused Hardt of creating tensions between Guyana and the U.S., and for the position he took on many local issues, positions she deemed hypocritical.
Not since political independence was attained by Guyana, has a diplomatic envoy of a foreign nation been so involved in open domestic political controversies as Mr. Hardt. His frequent public interventions in matters of national interest, at times revealed scant disrespect for the norms of quiet diplomacy that other accredited foreign diplomats routinely observe when they find it necessary to engage the government on specific issues.

 

 

 

Source: https://guyanachronicle.com/2014/07/08/ppp-commends-manickchand-for-standing-up-to-ambassador-hardt

The Guyana government has accused critics of then Acting Foreign Minister, Priya Manickchand of being “racist” and “sexist.”

Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira said attacks against Manickchand following her public humiliation of former United States (US) Ambassador to Guyana, Brent Hardt about his tenure here was yet another instance of Indian women being targeted.

Teixeira alluded to the Alliance For Change’s (AFC) characterization of Manickchand as “Satira Gal” (a Guyanese folk song) as part of a “racist and sexist” pattern. “It’s really saying basically …that Indian women in this country must know their place. They mustn’t come out of their confines and suddenly be out there speaking,” she said on a programme on the state-owned National Communications Network (NCN) television.

The Government Chief Whip noted that women’s movement has not been defending Indian women like Acting Town Clerk, Carol Sooba;  the Finance Minister’s wife, Gitanjali Singh and then Supreme Court Registrar, Sita Ramlall. “A lot of women who have been targeted in the media and by opposition parties have been majority Indo-Guyanese women,” said Teixeira.

The governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP), which draws the bulk of its support from among East Indians, lost its parliamentary majority by one seat at the 2011 general and regional elections partly due to apathy and less than satisfactory mobilization and dissatisfaction with the governance system.

The Private Sector Commission and former PPP Executive Member, Ralph Ramkarran have recently said that government should have resorted to diplomatic channels to air its grievances about the posture of then American envoy.

But Manickchand said the speech that she delivered at last week’s US Independence Day reception followed after several discussions with the then Ambassador about his “rogue behavior.” “We did speak behind closed doors,”  she said.

The then Acting Foreign Minister accused Hardt of breaching all the norms and conventions by launching an attack and laughing at Executive President and mocking the PPP’s General Secretary. Government also objected to Hardt saying that the President had engaged in unconstitutional and illegal acts.

Hardt had highlighted inconsistencies in Ramotar refusing to assent one of the Local Government Bills because it was unconstitutional but has declined to call local government elections which is provided for in the constitution. By law, the poll should be held every three years but has not been since 1994.

The government also interpreted one of Hardt’s utterances as an incitement of violence when he drew on an example of how Americans fought against British colonialists.  “We believe he went wrong when he practically called for an insurrection in this country,” he said.

Despite mounting criticisms, the Guyana government remained unapologetic and said its “feral blast” against the diplomat was justified.

 

 

 

Source: http://demerarawaves.com/2014/07/07/attacks-on-manickchand-racist-and-sexist/

Dear Editor,
In respect to what may be described as a spat between the Guyana Administration and the former Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Brent Hardt, it is important to recognise that although Article 37 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is not without considerable relevance, this provision is not determinative.

What is determinative is the customary rule of international law which precludes a diplomatic envoy from interfering in the domestic affairs of the receiving state, a primordial obligation encapsulated in Article 41.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1963) and also reflected in Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter.

It must be borne in mind that even though Article 8 of the constitution establishes this instrument as the supreme law in Guyana, it is trite international law that the laws of a state may not be invoked as a ground for non-compliance with an international obligation: Article 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

As a matter of law, a state may not even invoke its constitution as a ground for non-compliance with an international obligation: Article 13 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Rights and Duties of States.
In this context, reference may be made to Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th Edition, at p. 1068 where it is stated: “(i)t is universally recognised that envoys (or other diplomatic agents) must not interfere with the internal political life of the state to which they are accredit.

It certainly belongs to their functions to watch political events with a vigilant eye and to report their observations to their home state.

But they have no right whatever to take part in that political life, to encourage one political party or to threaten another. It matters not whether an envoy acts thus on his own account or on the instructions from his home state.
If he does so, he abuses his position, and the receiving state will either protest, or, in a more serious case, request his home state to recall him and appoint another individual in his place, or, if his interference is very flagrant, dismiss him”.

Oppenheim, an authoritative publicist on international law, further stated: “a line must, however, be drawn between functions which it is proper that a diplomatic mission may exercise, and those which it may not, although it has to be recognised that it is not always easy to draw such a line”(at p. 1067).

Ambassador Brent Hardt was due to leave Guyana on July 6, 2014 on determination of his assignment to this country.

Justice Duke Pollard                                                                                                                                           
Department of Law                                                                                                                                        
University of Guyana

 

 

 

Source: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2014/07/07/the-constitution-and-the-brent-hardt-affair/

It was Cabinet who prepared and cleared the speech that was delivered by Minister Priya Manickchand, chiding the US Ambassador, Brent Hardt, during a recent reception held in observance of America’s Independence Anniversary at his residence on Wednesday last.

This was confirmed on Friday by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, who told reporters that it is “standard practice”.
Dr Luncheon also defended the occasion used by Government to launch the vitriolic attack on the Ambassador, as ‘ideal’ since Hardt is scheduled to leave Guyana’s shores today.

He said that the Ambassador’s statements required an almost instantaneous response by Government.
According to Dr Luncheon, the speech read by Manickchand was compiled and edited at Office of the President. He added that input was received from those who are consulted and those who volunteered contributions, “to have these remarks made and heard and then they are compiled and edited, and at that point in time a decision is made.”

He explained that since the substantive Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, was not in Guyana a decision was taken on who would make the presentation at the Ambassador’s function.
According to Luncheon, the situation is akin to the criticisms that were leveled at Winston Brassington over the affairs of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) when in fact he is only acting on Cabinet decisions.

As it relates to Ambassador Hardt, Dr Luncheon noted that he leaves today, and has already identified his successor, but on Monday last, he still took the podium at an event hosted by the Blue Caps Organisation and launched a broadside against President Donald Ramotar, the Government of Guyana, Clement Rohee, the General Secretary of the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) and the party itself.”

According to Dr Luncheon, the Ambassador’s remarks “came perilously close to the ranting of the current opposition parties.” He said that the Ambassador saw it fit to accuse the President of duplicity regarding the constitutional rectitude, and belittle Rohee’s intellect.

Dr Luncheon said that it was amazing to see Ambassador Hardt attempt to speak of the comparable grounds for insurrection between the 1776 issues that faced King George at the time of the birth of the US and that which is facing President Ramotar during his term in office with regard to local government elections.
Dr Luncheon also observed a ‘muted’ reaction to the Ambassador by the local media and as such, the PPP was disposed to act immediately.

“The annual July the fourth ritual presented an ideal opportunity,” said Dr Luncheon.
He noted too that the acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Manickchand, who is an Attorney-at-Law, was relying on Article 37 of the Guyana Constitution, when she delivered a legitimate, “blast, a feral blast in response to the US Ambassador.”

Article 37 of the Guyana Constitution says “The state supports the legitimate aspirations of other people for freedom and independence and will establish relations with all states on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, inviolability of frontiers, territorial integrity of states, peaceful settlements of disputes, non-intervention in internal affairs, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and cooperation among states.”
According to Dr Luncheon, that article in the Constitution was imperative in guiding the Cabinet in the content of its response to the American Ambassador.

Dr Luncheon was also quick to point out that the “feral blast” against the Ambassador, was not in response to only his remarks on Monday, but was rather in response to an accumulation which was capped by his remarks to the Blue Caps Organisation.

 

 

 

 

Source: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2014/07/06/manickchands-blast-of-us-envoy-was-prepared-by-cabinet-dr-luncheon/

Contempt such as Ambassador Hardt is accused of in relation to the Head of State is a serious matter. In 1631, in one of the earliest reported cases of contempt, a prisoner, condemned for felony, threw a brick at the judge that narrowly missed. An indictment was there and then drawn against him, immediately upon which his right hand was cut off and fixed to the gallows. He was then taken and hanged in the presence of the court. (The Due Process of Law by Lord Denning p 5, courtesy of Mr Siand Durjohn, in-service law student at Cameron & Shepherd).

Ambassador Hardt should therefore consider himself very lucky to get away with only what Dr Luncheon described as a ‘feral blast’ by a ‘warrior.’ Feral indeed! As for being a ‘warrior,’ the United States itself may soon be in jeopardy with the number of warriors, the President included, in and around the Guyana Cabinet. Maybe we can live without the United States, but what if Guyana’s warriors declare war on all of its tormentors at the same time – the US, Canada, UK and the whole of Europe?

The principle of non-interference in the affairs of one state by another, crystalized by the UN Charter, has been invoked in defence of sovereignty on numerous occasions since the end of the Second World War. During the Cold War the West carried out a persistent campaign against the lack of freedom, free elections, a free press, freedom ofmovement and other freedoms in socialist countries. At the same time the West was unconcerned about lack of the same freedoms in countries which were their allies and even subverted those same freedoms where they existed, from Mossadeq to Allende. Even today, there is a vast difference in the approach of the United States to Saudi Arabia and to Cuba.

Guyana and the PPP were victims of this double standard and it is this history that conditions Guyana’s response to calls for local government elections from the United States. Ambassador Hardt is aware of this but says that this is US Government policy so that this ‘intervention’ is not likely to stop any time soon. While we have to await the responses of the other Western and European diplomats to see if their ardour for local government elections will now cool, we must recognize that there are well-established diplomatic protocols by which responses to such calls, if considered to be interference in the internal affairs of Guyana, or even insulting to the President, can be delivered.

Ambassador Hardt will probably accept but seek to explain the inconsistencies of the US’s post war diplomatic history, some of which are maintained in its current postures, but argue that those are no reason why Guyana should not have local government elections or why the United States cannot call for them. The Ambassador may then well argue that the issue of democracy has long ceased in international relations and in US foreign policy to be purely a domestic matter.

Ambassador Hardt has been accused of being disrespectful to the Head of State, President Ramotar, by pointing out what he saw as seeming inconsistencies in his defence of the Constitution. He pointed out that President Ramotar rejected the Local Government Commission Bill on the ground that it is unconstitutional but defends not holding local government elections which violates the Constitution.

By relying on ‘feral’ responses by an invited ‘warrior’ to the Ambassador’s home, the President lost the opportunity of defending his position, which he is quite capable of doing. While the Ambassador’s public remarks about the President’s inconsistencies may not be usual, public figures are expected to defend themselves, which is what the Ambassador no doubt expected. In all of these situations I try to think of what Cheddi Jagan would have done. Never, ever, taking criticism personally, being offended by it or being confrontational or personal, he would have first engaged the Ambassador by telephone as he often did. Then, if necessary, he would have made a public response to the issue.

Guyana has already accepted the precedent for intervention in its internal affairs in relation to elections. In December 1989 Cheddi Jagan, in a letter to President George H W Bush, urged his support for free and fair elections in Guyana. President Bush, as if in response but without saying so, expressed the hope to President Hoyte on Republic Day, February 23, 1990, that the elections would be free and fair. The message was repeated by the State Deparment and six Senators later wrote Secretary of State James Baker requesting that US aid be tied to free and fair elections.

President Hoyte’s initial reaction to President Bush and the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s letter making the same call was similar to the reaction of our government now. In fact, President Hoyte said that he had thrown Senator Kennedy’s letter in the garbage. But President Carter then entered the picture and free and fair elections came under direct American tutelage. Apart from national elections, the PPP fought for local government elections since 1970 when they were last held under the PNC. If the US is inconsistent, what about Guyana?

Ambassador Hardt has been a friend of Guyana, has laboured diligently to contribute to the welfare of Guyana and to further strengthen relations between the United States and Guyana. I join the rest of Guyana in wishing him and his family well and success in his new endeavours.

 

 

 

 

Source: https://www.stabroeknews.com/2014/features/07/06/defence-guyanas-sovereignty/