GUYANA recently observed its 43rd anniversary as an independent state. I propose in this article to provide a historical perspective on some of the forces that influenced and shaped the independence struggle. As shall be seen, the path to independence was one that was not without its fair share of politics, ideology and concomitant intrigues by the powers that be, more particularly Britain and the United States.
The genesis of the problem had to do primarily with the overwhelming victory of the left-wing People’s Progressive Party in the 1953 General Elections, the first under Universal Adult Suffrage.
This victory put an otherwise insignificant colony on the political map of the world. British Guiana became the first colony in the Western Hemisphere where a Marxist government gained political office through constitutional means.
The historic suspension of thee constitution and the forcible ejection of the popularly elected government after only 133 days in office had put the colony at center-stage in terms of international focus.
It is pertinent to note that these developments were taking place during a period when superpower rivalry between the United States and the U.S.S.R. for spheres of influence was gaining momentum. Many third world leaders were either overthrown or forced to vacate office for pursuing policies which were considered inimical to the interests of the United States.
It is against a background of the Cold War that internal political processes assumed meaning and significance, particularly from the United States perspective. In other words, the characteristics of the exercise of political power in a U.S sphere of influence, together with the susceptibility of the United States policy processes to anti-communism enabled opposition forces in particular the PNC and the right wing United Force to “externalize” an essentially internal conflict with the aim of achieving and consolidating power.
The United States has long regarded the Caribbean as its natural and legitimate sphere of influence, referring to it as “our lake”; “our backyard” and “our third border’.
This interest has its genesis in the Munroe Doctrine of 1823 but assumed greater meaning and significance following the end of the World War II when Communism emerged as a world system. This concern was explicitly stated in a speech by President Johnson on May 2nd, 1965:
“The American nation cannot, should not, and will not permit the establishment of another Communist government in the western hemisphere”.
This statement formed the cornerstone of the so-called Johnson Doctrine which was later ratified by the US Congress in 1965. Terrence Todman, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in a speech before the sub-committee on Inter-American Affairs summed it up quite neatly when he said:-
“I want to stress that political and economic trends in this region involve the United States very intimately. This is not true simply because of our interests and out proximity, important as these factors are for us. The fact is that we are Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, in the Virgin Islands and in our large Caribbean immigrant population we have the most direct kind of contact and involvement in Caribbean affairs.”
But United States concern for the region is not limited to ideological/doctrinal issues. Because of its geo-strategic location, the US attaches much importance to the Caribbean deep-sea lanes for military and commercial purposes. Other considerations include regional economic shifts within the USA with new industry, including defense and space programmes moving from the north-east towards the Caribbean. It should also be remembered that the United States is territorially present in the Caribbean through its possessions, Puerto Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands.
United States military and naval activities became intensified during World War II when Britain abandoned naval bases in the region in exchange for U.S support in the Second World War.
Ideological concerns became intensified during the Post World War II period when the Soviet Union emerged as a rival power to U.S world supremacy. This led to the creation of the organization of American-States which at its Caracas Declaration (1945) stated:-
“The domination or control of the political institution of any American State by the International Communist Movement extending to this Hemisphere the political system of an extra-continental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American States.”
This explains the exclusion of Cuba as a member of the OAS, notwithstanding robust representation by Caribbean and Latin American countries at the recently concluded Summit in Trinidad and Tobago.
This ‘spectre of Communism’, led U.S policy-makers to see any challenge to the socio-economic and political status quo in the region as the consequence of ‘communist subversion’.
This perception was given added impetus by the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and that country’s subsequent incorporation in the Communist alliance system. The emergence of a Soviet-backed communist regime, a mere 90 miles away from the Southern tip of Florida is probably still the most profound irritant to the Unites States and represents an unquestionable challenge to the Unites States supremacy in the Western Hemisphere.
In the years immediately following this historic event, the United States began to perceive “little Cubas” appearing throughout the Caribbean and responding in the usual way – intervention in the affairs of the “offending state” as was the case of Guyana.
During this period, there were several cases of United States intervention in the Caribbean, the most dramatic of which was the invasion of the Dominican Republic by U.S marines out of fear that the return of power of a nationalist government under the leadership of Juan Bosch would result in a Communist takeover of the country.
Other cases included the so-called “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba by U.S sponsored Cuban exiles in April 1961 and attempts by the CIA in collaboration with local opposition forces to overthrow the democratically elected PPP government during the 1963/64 period.
Guyana is no different in this respect. With over one hundred and fifty years of British colonial rule, it was only natural that a national culture basically of a European prototype evolved at the time of political independence.
As mentioned earlier, because of her subservient political status, British Guiana was hardly known beyond the shores of the South American continent.
It was not until the early 1950s that the colony began to attract world attention. This resulted in no small measure from the rise of nationalist leaders, foremost of which was Dr. Cheddi Jagan who in 1946, along with his wife Janet, Jocelyn Hubbard and Ashton Chase formed the political Affairs Committee (PAC) which from its very inception was unapologetically Marxist-Leninist.
The PAC provided Dr. Jagan with a political platform to launch an offensive against the then existing status-quo. Four years later, in January 1950, the PAC was transformed to a political party – the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) with L.F.S Burnham as Party Chairman, Janet Jagan as General Secretary and Dr. Jagan as Party Leader.
In the PPP, the outlines of a national political party began to take shape. The return to the colony of L.F.S Burnham, a young lawyer of African descent, added new impetus to the anti-colonialist struggle already ignited by Dr. Jagan
The PPP regime became one of the earliest victims of the Cold War. Soon after the removal of the PPP from office, an interim government was nominated which included members drawn mainly from the defeated National Democratic Party.
Leading members of the PPP were either imprisoned or had their freedom of movement restricted. Among those imprisoned were Dr. Cheddi Jagan and his wife Janet, both of whom were jailed for six months on separate charges. Burnham was spared the dragnet for reasons which will become obvious later in this article.
With the imprisonment of the top leadership of the PPP, the way was cleared to undo previous legislation and thereby preserve the then existing status-quo. But even more important from the standpoint of the colonial administration was the need to destroy or at least emasculate the militant PPP.
A Commission headed by Sir George Robertson was set up to investigate the circumstances leading to the suspension of the Constitution and to make recommendations. The PPP refused to appear before the Commission on the ground that it was “weak, uninspiring and unlikely to report objectively.
The Commission Report, true to form, endorsed the suspension of the constitution and found that the setback to orderly constitutional progress was due “not to defects in the constitution, but to the fact that those in control of the PPP proved themselves to be relentless and unscrupulous in their determination to pervert the authority of Government to their own disruptive and undemocratic ends.”
It also found “on the evidence as a whole, a very powerful communist influence within the PPP”.
Those singled out as accepting unreservedly the classical communist doctrine of Marx and Lenin included Dr. Cheddi Jagan, his wife Janet, Sydney King (now Eusi Kwayana), Brindley Benn and Martin Carter. Interestingly, Burnham was seen as representing the “socialist tendency” in the PPP.
In what could be seen as throwing out a “bait”, the Report said:- “Yet we had no doubt that the Socialists in the PPP were essentially democrats, and that left to themselves, their preference at all times would have been that the Party should pursue its constitutional objective by straight-forward and peaceful means. We doubt however if they had the wit to see the essential difference between themselves and their communist colleagues, and the ability to avoid being out-manoeuvered by them.”
And in an even more transparent attempt to woo Burnham away from the ‘hardliners’ within the PPP camp, the Report stated:-
“… there were many who thought that as the recognized leader of the ‘socialists’ in the party, Burnham ought to have taken as much stronger line than he did in opposition to more blatant communist activities of the Jagans and their supporters.”
The Report went on to conclude:-
“so long as the PPP retains its present leadership, there is no way in which any real measure of responsible government can be restored without the certainty that the country will again be subjected to constitutional crisis.”
It recommended a period of marking time in the advance towards self-government.
The basis was thus laid for a split in the PPP which did in fact materialized in 1955. The fact that the schism later manifested itself in terms of racial cleavages should not be interpreted to mean that it was essentially racial in nature, since a substantial number of Blacks remained with Jagan and quite a number of East Indians rallied behind Burnham.
In the 1957 General Election, for instance, the PPP (Jagan) managed to retain much of its multi-racial appeal by winning nine out of the fourteen seats in the Legislative Assembly as compared to a mere three seats won by Burnham. The other two seats were shared between the United Democratic Party headed by John Carter and Stephen Campbell who incidentally became the first Amerindian to enter Parliament.
The split in the PPP proved a major setback in the nationalist struggle for self-government and ultimate political independence. But even more damaging was the polarization of the two major ethnic groups – the Blacks and the East Indians along racial lines.
This left, as it were, a permanent ‘scar’ on the Guyanese social fabric and found tangible expression in the pattern of voting in the 1961, 1964 and subsequent elections, with the majority of East Indians supporting Dr. Jagan and Blacks supporting Mr. Burnham.
Dr. Jagan’s PPP captured the majority of the seats in both the 1961 and the 1964 General Elections although the margin of victory in terms of votes cast was minimal. In the 1961 elections for instance, the PPP polled 42.6 percent of the votes cast as compared to the PNC’s 41 percent.
The victory of the PPP in the 1957 and the 1961 election posed a serious challenge with respect to Anglo-American diplomacy. The leftist-orientation of the PPP under Marxist Cheddi Jagan became a “thorn in the flesh”, as far as these powers were concerned.
British Guiana became the first country in the western hemisphere where a leftist regime had gained political power through constitutional means. A salient point to note is that this period also coincided with that of the Cold war when both the Soviet Union and the U.S.A were actively competing, for “spheres of influence” with both sides seeking to expand their respective ideological frontiers.
The seizure of power by Fidel Castro in 1959 and the setting up of a communist regime in what is perceived to be a U.S. “backyard” heightened U.S sensitivity and tension in the region. It also rendered the United States even more responsive to, as it were, ‘nip in the bud’ any attempts at setting up communist governments in the region.
Of significance to note also is that the early 1960s coincided with the decolonization wave which at the time was sweeping the continents of Asia, Latin America and Africa. Britain had already signaled its intention to grant political independence to Guiana.
At the 1960 Constitutional Conference, the British government had accepted in principle the idea of independence. The intention was to grant political independence after the 1961 elections so that the winning party would be mandated to take the country into independence.
But that was not to be. Although winning the 1961 elections by a comfortable majority (20 out of 35 seats) the PPP was denied the honour of leading the country to independence on the grounds of political instability and violence.
It must be mentioned that immediately after the PPP victory a campaign of hostility was launched by the opposition. The PNC filed a series of petitions against PPP candidates.
Burnham refused to take up two senate seats allocated to the PNC by the Governor. According to the constitution, three of the eight senate seats were allocated to the opposition.
Burnham insisted on his party being awarded all three of the seats and objected vigorously to the allocation of one to the United Force.
At a meeting held at the Parade Ground, he attacked the Governor, using uncomplimentary language and snide remarks. A resolution was later passed calling for the governor’s recall. And in a show of defiance, Burnham and other PNC legislators squatted in front of the gates of the Public Buildings and had to be bodily lifted out of the way before the Governor could make his entry.
All of this, however, was insignificant when compared to the rioting, looting and the wanton destruction of property and lives later on. The excuse for the mayhem unleashed by the opposition was the 1962 Budget, popularly known as the Kaldor Budget.
The budget was deemed ‘anti-working class’ and ‘communistic’. Incidentally, the budget proposals came out of the recommendations of Nicholas Kaldor, a Cambridge University economist and tax expert whose services were made available to the government through the United Nations. .
It sought, among other things, to prevent unnecessary outflows of capital and block loopholes in the tax system with a view of improving the country’s balance of payment situation.
It is beyond the scope of this article to recount the painful experiences of this period. Suffice it to say that the 1961 riots left in its wake scores of individuals dead or injured, not to mention the numerous buildings lost to fire or otherwise damaged as a consequence of looting acts of vandalism.
Because of the charged and volatile atmosphere and the fear generated there from, entire families were forced to abandon their homes to seek refuge in ‘ethnic enclaves’.
One year later a general strike lasting 80 days was called in protest against the Labour Relations Bill. Interestingly, it was the attempted passage of this very Bill which led to the suspension of the 1953 constitution by the British Government. Burnham at that time was supportive of the Bill and spoke in glowing terms in its favour as can be seen from the following comments:-
“It guarantees a basic right to the worker to see after its proper observance. It is well and good to have quotations for the Declaration of Human Rights, but to say that a man has got the right to join (a) trade union to which he desires to join and then provided sanctions whereby that right cannot become a real right is not a satisfactory state of affairs.”
It is clear from the foregoing that the disturbances and violence were motivated by a desire on the part of the opposition to destabilize and eventually depose the PPP Government, since there was in our view nothing intrinsically undemocratic about any of the measures taken by the Government. This view was supported by the 1962 Report of the Riot Commission when it stated in part:-
“The political professions of the PNC were somewhat vague and amorphous. The real motive force behind Mr. Burnham’s assault against the Budget was a desire to assert himself in public life and establish a more important and rewarding position for himself.”
The disturbances and violence failed to bring down the PPP Government. However, it did result in forestalling independence and provided the basis for the imposition of a constitutional and electoral formula designed to bring the opposition to power which as will be shown later fit smugly into an ‘Anglo-American’ game plan to prevent the PPP from continuing into office. This was corroborated by U.S columnist Drew Pearson when he wrote:-
“The United States permitted Cuba to go communist through default and diplomatic bungling. The problem now is to look ahead and make sure we don’t make the same mistakes again. We are already on the way to making it in Haiti. But in British Guiana, President Kennedy having been badly burnt in the Bay of Pigs operation, did look ahead.”
According to Pearson, President Kennedy was to visit only Rome and Bonn in the summer of 1963 but London was added to the itinerary because of “Kennedy’s haunting worry that British Guiana would get its independence from England in July 1963 and set up another communist government under the guidance of Fidel Castro”.
He continued:-
“It wasn’t in the communiqué issued by the United States and England after the Kennedy – Macmillan meeting but the main thing they agreed on was that the British would refuse to grant independence to Guiana because of the general strike against pro-communist Prime Minister Cheddi jagan.”
Commenting on the crippling 80-day strike, Pearson wrote:-
“The strike was secretly inspired by a combination of U.S Central Intelligence Agency and British Intelligence. It gave London the excuse it wanted. British Guiana has not yet received its independence and another communist government at the bottom of the one-time American lake has been temporarily stopped.”
It is now history that the disturbances and strikes were secretly inspired by a combination of U.S Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British Intelligence in collaboration with the local opposition forces to forestall a Jagan-led PPP government from leading the country to political independence.
Neil Sheehan, writing in the New York Times of February 21, 1967 in an article headed “CIA linked to strikes that helped oust Jagan” accused the CIA of working under cover of an American Labour Union to organize strikes in British Guiana in 1962 and 1963 against the Jagan government.
A similar charge was made out by the Insight Team, which in an article published in the Sunday Times (London) April 1967 wrote:-
“As coups go, it was not expensive; over five years the CIA paid out something like £250,000. For the colony of British Guiana, the result was about 170 dead, untold hundreds wounded, roughly £10 million worth in damages to the economy and a legacy of racial bitterness.”
The Team implicated former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, former Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys and other British officials working in British Guiana. It observed that “not all the British officials were happy with what the British were doing regarding the manipulation of the local political situation.”
Actually, Britain was caught in a dilemma. It had agreed in principle to grant political independence to the colony at the 1960 Constitutional Conference within two years of the holding of General Elections. Not wishing to dishonour its pledge, and faced with U.S pressure to withhold independence to the colony, it teamed up with the CIA in fermenting strikes and disturbances in order to create the impression that Guiana, torn by racial strife was not ready for independence.
A GREAT INJUSTICE UNDONE
BY PARVATI PERSAUD-EDWARDS
“This historic development has vindicated the Cuban Government’s position over the past forty-seven years. The PPP was the only government in Latin America and the Caribbean that stood uncompromisingly in solidarity with Cuba at that time. The PPP strongly believes in the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. It is one of the components in the bedrock on which the PPP was founded in its own anti-colonial struggles.” – Donald Ramotar
THE lifting of the almost half a century of suspension of Cuba by the Organisation of American States (OAS) has heralded a new direction in American international relations as Obama continues to strive for positions that would catalyze a movement that he hopes will ultimately fructify in global peace.
For this to eventuate compromises over hardline positions have to be achieved, but the winds of change are already wafting its soothing breezes in the troubled landscape of international politics.
The historic handshake, so cordial and warm, between Hugo Chavez, a staunch supporter of Castro, and Obama, in Trinidad earlier this year was one significant landmark in that change, and this may have been one of the factors that heralded the goodwill that predisposed the American Government to sanction the lifting of the ban against Cuba that was imposed by the OAS forty-seven years ago.
At the meeting in Honduras on Wednesday, the 34-member hemispheric body unanimously voted in overturning its 1962 decision to suspend Cuba when it had taken a direction toward Communism and alliances with the Soviet bloc under the leadership of its revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro.
Castro had stated his intention not to seek re-instatement of Cuba into the OAS, and whether the lifting of the ban is enough, or whether Cuba will once again have to seek membership within that body, the way has been paved for Washington to move in the direction in which Cuba’s Latin American allies and Guyana have been advocating.
That Washington is agreeable and amenable to engagements with Cuba can be gauged from US Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, who said: “We removed a historical impediment to Cuba’s participation in the OAS, but also established a process of engagement with Cuba.”
Guyana and its own leader, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, were also victims of the demonization by the superpowers of those who supported Cuba, and this nation also has its own scars from that period when those who befriended Cuba were branded “communists” and figuratively choked to death – politically, leading to decades of devastation of this country’s infrastructural, economic, and social systems, so, in essence, Cuba’s triumph and vindication is also Guyana’s triumph and vindication.
In an invited comment, General-Secretary of the PPP, Mr. Donald Ramotar, who exudes elation over this decision by the OAS, said: “This historic development has vindicated the Cuban Government’s position over the past forty-seven years.
“The PPP was the only government in Latin America and the Caribbean that stood uncompromisingly in solidarity with Cuba at that time.
“The PPP strongly believes in the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. It is one of the components in the bedrock on which the PPP was founded in its own anti-colonial struggles.
“We hope, indeed we believe, that this is the first step to dismantling of the economic blockade that has been imposed on Cuba for decades, which has cost that country much in terms of human suffering and economic development, where even the acquisition to basic necessities, such as medicines, were affected.
“However, the Cuban people have exemplified the courage of their convictions and have withstood the effects of the blockade with commendable fortitude and forbearance, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“This stands testimony to their conviction about the correctness of their chosen path.
“We in the PPP are also happy that the governments that voted to suspend Cuba forty-seven years ago have unanimously agreed to overturn that decision, even decades after the fact, which is testimony to the changing times in which we are living, and also a recognition that the Cuban revolution not only helped to liberate the Cuban people, but was also a contribution toward the upliftment of the Latin American and Caribbean nations in the social, economic, and political arenas.
“Over the decades Cuba has invested heavily in the development of the human capital of the region. Our country in particular, and the region in general, would have been poorer without the tremendous assistance provided by Cuba in our various sectors, especially in the fields of medicine, education and skills development, and in many spheres of social and cultural activities. Many of our people who hold important positions in various professional streams have been trained in Cuba.
“On behalf of the PPP I extend fraternal greetings and take this opportunity to wish the Communist Party of Cuba and the Cuban people all of our best wishes for future successes.”
Smiling broadly, Mr. Ramotar concluded: “Cheddi should have been here to witness this. He would have been so happy. Wherever he is he must be smiling today.”
Indeed he is, Donald, indeed he is. This development is the realization of another of his long-cherished dreams.
