–playing nice is not an option in face of ‘gross interference’

EDUCATION Minister Priya Manickchand yesterday, in the National Assembly, defended the stance she took against former United States Ambassador Brent Hardt for his “frequent” and “repeated” utterances that went against diplomatic protocol.

And she made it clear that leaders of Guyana have a duty to defend Guyana’s sovereignty, and do not enjoy the luxury of saying yes to the dangerous interference simply to avoid trouble or to please someone, including another country.

“A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’, merely uttered to please; or worse, to avoid trouble,” Manickchand said, in reference to a quotation made popular by Mahatma Gandhi.

The Minister’s comments followed a statement made by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP) Ms. Africo Selman, who claimed “personal grievance” over the tongue-lashing Hardt had received at a reception he hosted to mark the US’ 238th Independence Anniversary.

The former US ambassador has been one of the most vocal members of the diplomatic corps. He had repeatedly called on the current Administration to hold Local Government Elections, and had been vocal to the point where he flayed the Head of State, President Donald Ramotar, for “selectively” abiding by Guyana’s Constitution, even as the country awaits long overdue local government elections.

He’d also mocked PPP General Secretary, Clement Rohee. It was at this point that the Government decided that it had had enough; that Hardt had crossed the proverbial ‘red line’. The end result was then Acting Foreign Affairs Minister, Priya Manickchand taking him to task at the US Independence celebration last Wednesday, where he repeated his call for the “restoration of effective elected local government” in Guyana.

Manickchand made clear that her position — and by extension the position of the Government of Guyana — was right and necessary, given not only the violation of diplomatic protocols, but the contravention of international conventions; namely, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as is explained by the Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th Edition.

“We are proud that we have done what we were mandated by the people to do, and represented Guyana against interference,” she said.

INSURRECTION CALL
According to Manickchand, Hardt’s comments also included dangerous undercurrents, as the former US Ambassador’s statements incited a call for insurrection.

At his reception last Wednesday, Hardt had referred to the move by Americans, pre-independence, to take up arms to challenge the positions taken by King George, the monarch of the United Kingdom (UK), who ruled what is today the United States of America (USA).
Hardt said, “He (King George) refused his assent to laws. He refused to pass laws for the accommodation of large districts of people. He dissolved representative houses repeatedly, and refused, for a long time after such dissolution, to cause others to be elected.

“…in a short space of time, the loyal citizens of the colonies came to feel that their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had been eroded, or even usurped.

“The ability to attend to their own affairs in their local legislatures had been suspended and not restored…. In taking this historic and courageous stand (the fight against King George) back in July 1776, the citizens of the American colonies came together to form what would be a great nation.”

According to Hardt, one of the core strengths of our nation has been the “vital role” that state and local governments have played in “giving people the opportunity to participate directly in their governance” – something that Guyanese could be able to do through the holding of local government elections.

“The American history we celebrate serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of respecting rights to local representation; for, among the American colonialists’ lament, we do well to recall that the elimination of local representative houses and the refusal, for a long time after such dissolution, to cause others to be elected were the wellsprings of discontent that convinced once loyal British subjects to declare their independence,” Hardt said.

It is the latter comment, in particular, that struck discord.

“In that speech (last Wednesday’s speech) Government is of the view that it called for insurrection,” Manickchand said yesterday.

PRIOR DISCUSSIONS
The Education Minister also stated that Government has repeatedly engaged Hardt on the matter of his breach of diplomatic protocols.

“We have said this repeatedly; and what is more is that neither Mr. Hardt nor any of his representatives has ever said the matter was not addressed behind closed doors,” she pointed out.

Manickchand called on Selman to apprise herself of the facts of the issue, given that the APNU MP, in her statement, pointed out that there were other avenues available for the Government to voice its concerns.

Minister Manickchand said she expected — now that Selman and her party are aware that the Ambassador was indeed engaged — that they would have no difficulty in calling for him to apologise for his repeated breaches and insult to Guyanese.

Additionally, the fact that Selman raised the issue as a point of personal grievance attracted some debate. The Government’s Chief Whip, Ms. Gail Teixeira, questioned under what point of order Selman was making her comments, since reference was made by her to her party’s position, a statement she later rephrased to cement her argument that the issue was a personal grievance.

Government MP Manzoor Nadir added his voice to the raging debate, noting that Selman’s comments caused him personal grievance.
However, the Speaker, Raphael Trotman, declined to entertain this, and allowed Selman to complete her brief statement, wherein she also called on Manickchand to apologise to the nation for an “undiplomatic” speech.
Opposition MPs were loud in their rejection of Manickchand’s statement, but the Minister was adamant, as well as emphatic, in maintaining her position.
This issue has been at the core of debates at several forums, particularly in social media and in the letter columns of the dailies.

(By Vanessa Narine)