IT IS incredible what is being said about the acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Priya Manickchand’s forthright address on the occasion of the 238th Independence Anniversary observances, recently held at the residence of the already recently departed United States Ambassador, Brendt Hardt. What has been noticeable and key in all these views/opinions etc. is that almost all of them come from personalities who seem to have no knowledge of diplomatic protocols or have become conveniently ignorant of what these are. Most of the comments have been from those, the usual anti-government critics, who were speaking from a purely unadulterated political agenda.
Since the entire episode of the Ambassador’s infringement of diplomatic courtesies, and Government responses that culminated in Minister Manickchand’s emphatic response, is of a constitutional nature, the question must be asked – where are those constitutional lawyers of whom there are many? Sure thing, they are always promptly there in court as legal representatives of the political Opposition parties. But in this matter of Ambassador Hardt’s assault on our national sovereignty, a deafening silence pervades among their numbers. They should speak; their voices ought to be heard, as this is an issue that can only be determined within the pristine ambit of strict legal principles.
But the fact of their silence only signals to the nation, that either they are afraid to stand by the true and honest interpretation of international law as it pertains to this extant case, lest it angers the Americans, and their political Opposition clients.
This editorial does hold the view that it is not too late for a view from these learned gentlemen, for there has just been a defined position taken by the eminent professor of law, and retired judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Duke Pollard, via a letter in the media, in which he gave a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the law that governs the conduct of diplomats in accordance with the Vienna Convention. He must be commended for his patriotic stance. Of course, Ambassador Hardt was cited for interference. Even former government minister, Dr. Henry Jeffrey, now a columnist/critic, has made it quite clear in his Wednesday column “Future notes”, as to the diplomat’s culpability.
Of course, no one is attempting to arm twist any of these attorneys into a public opinion. Yet, it is a fact that they are generally prompt in their interpretation of the law as it pertains to judicial matters that involve both the Government and the Opposition. So why not on the very important issue of State, which sovereignty has been clearly attacked?
Is their silence one of fear, or one of convenience?
Those who know the truth must defend it; particularly when it involves the dignity of the State which must be upheld at all times.