Dear Editor
THE Western Diplomatic Community is often held in high repute in most developing countries, none being the least, Guyana. So when public statements are made by them, it captures the attention of many especially when done in delicate times such as now. But, their actions have come in for much scrutiny in the past few months especially in view of the massive lobby onslaught by the main Opposition party, the PPP, through its hired gun in the USA– Mercury Public Affairs.

Hence, my attention was drawn to last Sunday’s, 31st May 2020 Kaieteur News article captioned, “Election Day process so impressive that it was “impossible to cheat” citing reference to the European Union (EU) Envoy to Guyana, Fernando Ponz Canto. In his claims, one cannot help notice how gushed he was over election’s day events. Being new comer (just 9 months here) to the Diplomatic scene like the American Envoy, one is forced to forgive his ignorance of Guyana’s crafty and skillful corruption legacy. Instead of hosting a virtual press conference with a wider cross-section of media houses, he choose or was perhaps duped into being interviewed by the TVG Channel 28, an associate of Guyana Times and several other online news rags, well known mouth organs of the PPP, thus tainting the EU’s credibility in this fragile time and signaling his partiality towards one side of the electoral divide.

However, the EU has more at stake, and I understand why the Envoy leaned in this direction. An EU Elections Observer mission spend thousands of Euros here, and to justify to EU taxpayers it did a good job, the Envoy must give value to the team’s work, however woefully lacking or inconclusive it may be. In the face of all the objections that occurred on elections day, Canto jumps into the middle before the recount is concluded and before GECOM could pronounce on these matters. In doing, so he has taken a side of the divide by pressuring GECOM to deliver a particular outcome. Very unfortunate and I wonder of his diplomatic presence here.

In view of the multitude of electoral objections, Canto concludes by saying “I think that there are mechanisms to address those questions in due course. It’s very legitimate that anybody can raise any objections, of course. But there are legal and sure means to deal with those objections in due course.” This is rather unfortunate comment, since the recount itself is something envisaged as a matter to be held in due course, in the form of an elections petition, after the elections declaration. So as we are examining a due course matter now, why would an Envoy attempt to divert attention away from having these objections investigated now? By trying to trivialize these objections for the sake of expediency places the EU embassy in a compromised position.

In Canto’s own home country of Spain, when their December 2015 elections were inconclusive, and the winner was unable to form a majority government, a new election was called six months later. And while the incumbent Prime Minister was sworn in three months thereafter, Spain has since had four elections in four years. In addition, the 2014 Catalan self-determination referendum which resulted in a vote of 80.76% for independence, saw the Catalan leaders charged and put on trial despite a clean electoral process, but because Spain’s center was unhappy, today Catalan is forced to remain part of Spain. These double standards emanating from Canto’s home country cannot go unnoticed. If the outcome of Guyana’s electoral process shows a flawed process, having new elections within a year is the minimum democratic standard.

Notably, just a few days before Canto’s remarks, in Stabroek News 27th May edition, the British Envoy to Guyana stressed the importance of having a credible “electoral process,” a slight but significant departure from an earlier joint statement of 6th May by the Western block which had emphasized a credible “recount process”. This is coming from a gentleman who is probably longest serving Envoy in the diplomatic community in Guyana, almost 5 years. He knows and has seen how far politicians will go to get what they want, even if it means trying to subvert elections-day activities. The recently highlighted massive discrepancies’ allegations during the recount must have weighed in on his latest views for which he must be commended. One hopes the other newbie, the American Envoy, will follow suit and advise her Washington DC hierarchy of what is becoming more and more noticeable by the day, an attempted theft of the electoral process on elections day. I, however, do not hold out such hope for the Canadian Envoy who has appeared listless since the no-confidence motion in December 2018.

Regards,
Michael Smith