PERHAPS THE nicest thing that could be said about the vicious, unprovoked, personal attack made against President Bharrat Jagdeo by the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) is that by its recently published report on Guyana, this non-governmental organisation may have done more harm to its own integrity, under the guise of ‘independent analysis’, than affect the leadership and quality of governance in this country. The quality of the ‘analysis’ against President Jagdeo and the government he leads is a far cry from the offerings encouraged in earlier years by its well-known leading figure, Larry Birns.
In contrast, the raw, emotional propaganda, released to the media and being circulated by some of the very foreign and local anti-government collaborators, make a mockery of claimed independent professional analysis.
Naturally, media elements in Guyana, known for their own historical anti-Jagdeo, anti-government campaigns, were to be expected to readily give full exposure to COHA’s claimed ‘independent findings’.  
Any independent observer with some knowledge about party politics and governance in Guyana, and the leadership quality provided over the years since his elevation to the presidency, would be surprised and amused to find the “tattered legacy” President Jagdeo is “leaving” as presented in the COHA ‘analysis’.
Its opening political salvo points to “stagnation, violence, corruption, arch-sectarianism and unfettered crime.” This, as contended, is all part of the so-called “tattered legacy” of Jagdeo as he prepares to leave office once a new government is formed at this year’s coming elections.
As if illiterate about Guyana today, which had to promote social cohesion and economic recovery from 28 years of misrule by the main opposition party, PNC, or too anxious to join in spreading gross distortions by the government’s local opponents and their overseas backers, the COHA “assessment” was contemptuously dismissive of President Jagdeo.
To its researchers and authors, Jagdeo is viewed as being tolerant to both racism and crime; and also quite callous when it comes to fostering policies and programmes to help social and economic progress on any sustained basis.
However, as if an afterthought, and unmindful of an evident contradiction in what they have produced for circulation and publication as “informed” and “independent” analysis,  the COHA report states, and we quote:
“To his credit, Jagdeo has led Guyana on a path of considerable economic growth in the last ten years, despite a devastating flood in 2005…The Guyanese economy has expanded at an average rate of three per cent over the past decade…”
Yes! According to the report, this occurred under the leadership of the same Jagdeo; the same President who they so verbally savaged (WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE) for all of the claimed serious social ills, such as “tolerance” to crime and racism, that affect Guyana.
That’s not all! Let it also be noted what the COHA “independent” researchers and authors” had to say about Guyanese and Guyana in general: We quote:
“As Guyanese use every strategy, legal and illegal, to flee the dysfunctional country (dysfunctional?), Jagdeo will go down in history as a man who did almost NOTHING (our emphasis) for his nation while in office…”
It is to be wondered whether the foreign and local COHA collaborators feel any sense of  shame about the kind of slander, the gross distortions to denigrate Guyana, its democratically elected government and Head-of-State — all dished out and being served, locally and abroad, as “independent analysis”. 
The sad truth is that this piece of work by COHA can very well hurt its own claimed commitment to “independent research and information”. It is a sin against itself.