Dear Editor,
THIS letter is a response to the growing demand by coalition supporters for an explanation of the U.S. policy in the present electoral crisis. It is also written to explain my contention that the U.S. policy is linked to the imperative of President Donald Trump’s re-election bid in November.
The U.S. and its western allies have in a major way shaped Guyana’s elections and. politics and our independence struggle took place in the Cold War period with the PNC in the USA ‘s camp and the PPP in the USSR ‘s sphere. Since Guyana is in the American “back yard,” the U.S. had encouraged rigged elections against the PPP that resulted in 28 years of PNC rule which ended in 199’2 with the intervention of the fom1er U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The 1992 elections took place at the end of the Cold War and in this new situation, the USSR and it ally the PPP were not now viewed as a threat in the U.S. backyard. The U.S. Congress and government subsequently tied U.S. economic aid to free and fair elections. This change in policy lead to 23 years of PPP/C rule ( 1992 to 2015), supported by the U.S. and its western allies. Guyana’s new embrace of free and fair elections did not result in the end of rigged elections; instead, we experienced refined fom1s of rigging by the PPP/C. Given the ethnic demographics that favour the PPP/C and the apparently new international standards, irregularities and l fraud are now not enough to change the logic of the vote. This allowed the PPP/C to rig composition of the parliament until 2015.
The U.S. and its ABC allies claim that they played a, role in convincing the PPP/C ‘s leadership to concede defeat in the 2015 elections. which that party claimed was rigged against it. If one accepts this position, it can be argued that the U.S. and the ABC countries involvement in our elections since 1992, while not perfect, was an attempt at a balance between the major parties, and by extension the African and Indian communities.
However, the March 2 General and Regional Elections presented a change as demonstrated at the Region Four tabulations and their (ABC countries) subsequent ne flexing of muscles characterised by ” regime change.” They are no longer independent arbitrators. The U.S. and its allies’ position that they are defending democracy and the rule of law is itself self-serving, particularly after an agreement was reached among President David Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, Chairman of GECOM and CARICOM on a recount and verification process. The modalities were spelt out in the gazetted order. No amount of hiding behind the CARICOM report and the CCJ ruling can negate this fact.
The country had embraced the recount/ verification process with a large degree of hope, since on the surface it appears to be fair to each of the contending sides of the political divide. In short, the recount of ballots satisfies the PPP/C and its supporters, while verification of the ballots satisfies the APNU+AFC and its supporters. This approach potentially provided us to have a confirmation of votes for each party and equally important a determination of whether the votes cast are val id and devoid of fraud. Afte:r the ballot boxes revealed both the numbers of votes for e:ach party and the massive fraud, it was expected that faced with reality, the U.S. and its ABC allies, in view of the evidence of fraud and irregularities throughout the electoral process that their previous perceptions about the elections would have changed. But tl1is was not to be since the U.S. and their allies’ mission in the Guyana elections is essentially regime change. The only facts that matter for them were those that would lead to the realisation of their objective. Since the U.S. and ABC countries are historic players in Guyana’s politics and elections, they were well aware of the opportunity our elections crisis offers them to play an objective and positive role to ensure that no party benefited exclusively from a rigged election. Their failure to use the enormous power and international influence to help the country (let past this historical “plague” which the U.S. and the western powers helped to create opens them up to the accusation of encouraging the continuation of rigged elections in Guyana, so that they can use it as an instrument to control and dominate our political life. To put it another way, divide and rule.
I have said sufficient to form the basis for my contention that the U.S. position on Guyana’s 2020 General and Regional elections is driven by the imperative of President Donald Trump’s re-election bid in November. Two major issues that usually drive the U.S. presidential elections are the economy and foreign policy. All presidential candidates and their parties are well aware of this reality and seek to maximise their advantage in these important areas. Internationally, Trump has little success in the area of foreign policy to go into these elections. It is in this context that Venezuela be comes important. If Trump can achieve regime change in that country it would enhance his re-election-bid. Venezuela is not North Korea with nuclear weapons and it is in America’s back yard, hence, it is vulnerable in military and political terms.
As matters stand in that country the U-S. policy of regime change has led to consolidation of Russia and China to emerge as major players in Venezuela and by extension in the U.S. back yard. This poses both a
“dilemma” and an «opportunity” for the Trump administration. It
is in this context that Guyana like Colombia, as bordering countries with Venezuela, becomes of great importance to U.S. political and military leadership in their determination of options in Venezuela. President Trump in the last election committed to bringing home American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and said that he would not send the military into avoidable conflicts. He has instead demonstrated a preference for the use of non-human military assets. And to date has resisted pressures from the «warmongers” in his administration, for a change of policy. President Trump, however, its on record as saying that all options are on the table in relation to I ran, North Korea and more redeny, Venezuela. Of the three countries mentioned, Venezuela is more a likely candidate for a U.S. military option.
It is my considered opinion that given President Trump’s reluctance to send American troops into armed conflicts and wanting to keep his commitment to his political base, he would see sending U.S. ground troops into Venezuela as an option of last resort. Despite that position, Trump has shown that he is open to forms of political/ military actions that will allow regime change without a firefight with the Venezuelans and their Russian ally. Bearing in mind the Cold War engagement between the two superpowers at that time operated on the acceptance of the right of each side to hold sway in its backyard, the American political and military planners seem to be relying on the Russians bucklering under U.S. pressure, and falling back to the old understanding they had in the Cold War period. Political and military forces in the Trump administration are therefore pushing for the U.S. to test Russia’s resolve in Venezuela.
This requires the U.S. to confront Venezuela and its allies with a formidable threat of pending military engagement. To achieve this posture, Colombia and Guyana as bordering countries with Venezuela become important in the U.S. scheme. The use of either our land, sea or airspace or all three, is what the Trump administration is after as it relates to Guyana. The U.S. position on our elections, I repeat, has nothing to do with the promotion of democracy, or free and fair elections and the rule of law. It is in my opinion that their judgement of our political leadership is that Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP/C will be willing to comply with U.S. requests. This explains the rush for regime change in Guyana. The APNU+AFC its supporters and the African community unfortunately are the victims to be thrown under the bus for the U.S. administration to achieve its goal in Venezuela.
I end by stating it will not be long before the Guyanese nation and the world bas confirmation of the correctness of my judgement on the rule U.S. intentions in relation to our elections. Expediency is the name or tbt game. The recent visit by the local representatives of tbt U.S. and the ABC countries to tbt leadership of the Guyana Defence Force in tbt present political situation is improper and diplomatically offensive to the government and the Guyanese nation.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_14_2020
