And now the expected responses from the political opposition and the well- known government critics in the aftermath of the acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Priya Manickchand address at the recent United States Independence anniversary observance, on Wednesday evening. Again, Observer notes the stand taken by both the A Partnership for National Unity(APNU) and the Alliance For Change(AFC), as they both have concluded that the Honourable Minister was incorrect in her forthright statements in which she took the US envoy to task for meddling in Guyana’s internal affairs. APNU has even called on President Donald Ramotar “to disassociate his administration from these worthless remarks and issue an unconditional apology to Ambassador Brent Hardt and the people of the United States of America.”
That this Opposition demand is absurd as well as ridiculous, reflects a culture of thinking that once again displays the tactic of sacrificing principle upon the altar of naked political opportunism.
OBSERVER must ask of this senior Opposition party why it has not seen fit to demand an apology from Hardt, not only for intrusion into Guyana’s internal affairs, but also for his attacks on the country’s President. Such should also be demanded of the AFC, that claimed that “the Republic was embarrassed by the tone and sentiments expressed by the Minister but also the occasion and circumstances in which they were delivered were unforgivable.”
The occasion was indeed unique, though not surprising, since all of the notable critics, high profiled, were gathered at the diplomat’s residence, and shamelessly gave views that amounted to a sell-out of their country. They conveniently forget the principle of non-intervention, as they shamelessly lined up to show how much they loved America! What a bunch!
What was even more hypocritical was the publicly aired views of a former high potentate of the former PNC administration. Surely, for him to claim amnesia with respect to the tensions and strained relations in the late 1970s between the then government and the United States regarding interference would be akin to saying that the then government did not exist. In fact, so deteriorated had relations become, that government officials at that time were warned not to attend any diplomatic reception hosted by the United States embassy!
OBSERVER stands to be corrected by saying that a Fire Chief resigned his office as a result of infringing such an order!
For all the talk about democracy, and the right of expression, it would have been principled, and definitely courteous, on the part of the host to have asked the gathering, insisting especially that the hecklers allow the Minister to speak. For after all, she was the High Plenipotentiary of the Government of Guyana, mandated to deliver its message. Even such a basic courtesy was denied the Minister, as she sought to uphold Guyana’s sovereignty.
For all the accusations of “discourteous and undiplomatic” conduct levelled against the Minister and government, Guyanese will in time understand the stand that had been taken in defence of their sovereign right as a nation to determine their own affairs.