IN a letter in SN (Sep 17), Mr. Carl Cheong stated that the international community never applied sanctions against the PNC dictatorship and as such the regime could not be deemed to be illegal.” That is utter rubbish. This is a limited and simplistic understanding of geo-politics, international relations, and the Cold War battle between the Soviet Union (East) and America (West). If Mr. Cheong has any doubts in his mind about election rigging in Guyana, he can google reports of observer missions to Guyana including Lord Avebury report (1980 elections); Latin American Bureau (London); Inter-American Human Rights Org (N.Y), etc. The PNC rigged every election in Guyana to deny Cheddi Jagan’s PPP a victory. Governing through fraudulent elections makes a government illegal.
Messrs Annan Boodram and Vassan Ramracha are absolutely right in their interpretations of geo-politics regarding Guyana in their responses (SN Sep 19, 21 respectively) to Cheong. Mr. Ramracha and I studied international politics at CCNY and in fact he is credited for my switch from medical studies to social studies after my Bio-Chem degree and my deep involvement in the anti-dictatorial struggle. He served as mentor for several of us who were committed to the liberation of Guyana from the dictatorship.
Cheong stated that Guyana was not expelled from the OAS “but Cuba was and remains suspended from the OAS.” Guyana was the subject of a major power struggle between the East and West during the 1950s thru 1990. The U.S. sided with Burnham to keep out Jagan whom the U.S. saw as a threat to American business (imperialist) and geo-strategic interests. Sanctions were applied to Cuba and not Guyana because of geo-political and Cold War considerations. Guyana under the PNC was an ally of the West, whereas Cuba was an ally of the East. So PNC Guyana was protected and defended at international forums by imperialistic forces and even given financial assistance to keep the PNC regime alive.
The U.S. was not comfortable with Burnham, but they tolerated him because the alternative was a democratic Jagan government which was anathema to what America stood for. Jagan was perceived as a greater threat to imperialism than an undemocratic Burnham. The dictator played “politics” with the West when it was to his advantage and even courted the socialist East as a strategy to force the West to give him more aid. Burnham did not incur the wrath of the Americans until he fully broke with them triggering an aid cut off. After communism collapsed, Jagan was no longer viewed as a threat to America. Hoyte attempted a break with Burnhamism and fully re-embraced the West. By this time, the West had already applied “aid sanctions” on Guyana. A pre-condition for resumption of aid was the return to the rule of law and the holding of free and fair elections. Hoyte grudgingly accepted these conditions against the wishes of his party. Legal rule was restored after the October 1992 elections which were sponsored and accepted by the international community.
It should be noted that Guyana was at one time denied membership in the OAS because of opposition from Venezuela and other Latin states. Also, Cuba was expelled from the OAS at the behest of the U.S. after the revolution. Since then, virtually all of the American states have called for the restoration of Cuba to the American hemisphere of nations because the battle between the Soviets and the Americans is over.
Cheong stated that I should know that international law and diplomacy provide for action to be taken against countries that violate international law and conventions. Cheong does not seem to understand that sanctions were selectively taken against rulers or countries that violated human rights for political or strategic reasons. The fact that sanctions were taken against the PNC government does not make it legal. No court in Guyana would have ruled against Burnham on electoral matters.
Appeals to the Privy Council were abolished after the 1968 election-rigging that created a magic majority for the PNC, according to the London Times. So rigging could not be challenged and the U.S. was not prepared to pressure the PNC to restore democratic rule that would lead to the return of the PPP.
The U.S. and/or the global community intervened in countries when it is in their interests. For example, the U.S. intervened in The Philippines in late 1985 because its reputation was on the line. It could no longer close its eye to rigged elections. I had an exchange with the former Foreign Minister, Raul Manglapus of The Philippines when the Graduate Student Government, of which I was President, sponsored his lecture at CCNY. Manglapus was President Ferdinand Marcos’s Foreign Minister, but he broke with the dictator and joined the struggle in the U.S. for free
and fair elections in his homeland in much the same way that former Foreign Minister Fred Wills did against Burnham.
Manglapus was critical of the U.S. for supporting Marcos as Wills was of the U.S. backing Burnham. I also hosted Wills (a Prof with whom I had several discussions) at CCNY for lectures during my tenure in undergraduate and Graduate Students Government. Manglapus (who would be re-appointed Foreign Minister when Corey Aquino became the President), as Wills did for Guyana, called for the restoration of democracy and urged the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on the dictator to force democratic rule. The U.S. moved against Marcos when he rigged
the 1985 election because the entire country rose up against him. Guyanese were fearful of rebelling because Burnham would have slaughtered them.
Marcos was accused of killing the Opposition Leader Benigno Aquino
(similar to how Burnham was accused of killing Walter Rodney) whose
Widow had defeated Marcos, but he refused to concede defeat choosing instead
to rig the counting and claimed victory. Since the Aquinos were allies
of the U.S., replacing a loyal dictator with a democratic loyalist was
easy. But it was not that easy to replace a PNC dictator in Guyana that
was an ally of the U.S. even though a popular leader like Rodney was
murdered. The country was against Burnhamism but iron- fisted rule and
geo-politics allowed Burnham and Hoyte to avoid sanctions – not because
they were not considered illegal.
Secretary-General Ban Ki moon of the UN intervened in elections in
Zimbabwe, as it did also in Kenya and other African countries, because
the major international players were not opposed to such interventions.
During the Cold War period, such interventions (as should have happened in an oppressive fascist state such as Guyana were not contemplated because the U.S. did not want to lose an ally (whether legally in office or not) to apply sanctions against it.
Messrs Annan Boodram and Vassan Ramracha are absolutely right in their interpretations of geo-politics regarding Guyana in their responses (SN Sep 19, 21 respectively) to Cheong. Mr. Ramracha and I studied international politics at CCNY and in fact he is credited for my switch from medical studies to social studies after my Bio-Chem degree and my deep involvement in the anti-dictatorial struggle. He served as mentor for several of us who were committed to the liberation of Guyana from the dictatorship.
Cheong stated that Guyana was not expelled from the OAS “but Cuba was and remains suspended from the OAS.” Guyana was the subject of a major power struggle between the East and West during the 1950s thru 1990. The U.S. sided with Burnham to keep out Jagan whom the U.S. saw as a threat to American business (imperialist) and geo-strategic interests. Sanctions were applied to Cuba and not Guyana because of geo-political and Cold War considerations. Guyana under the PNC was an ally of the West, whereas Cuba was an ally of the East. So PNC Guyana was protected and defended at international forums by imperialistic forces and even given financial assistance to keep the PNC regime alive.
The U.S. was not comfortable with Burnham, but they tolerated him because the alternative was a democratic Jagan government which was anathema to what America stood for. Jagan was perceived as a greater threat to imperialism than an undemocratic Burnham. The dictator played “politics” with the West when it was to his advantage and even courted the socialist East as a strategy to force the West to give him more aid. Burnham did not incur the wrath of the Americans until he fully broke with them triggering an aid cut off. After communism collapsed, Jagan was no longer viewed as a threat to America. Hoyte attempted a break with Burnhamism and fully re-embraced the West. By this time, the West had already applied “aid sanctions” on Guyana. A pre-condition for resumption of aid was the return to the rule of law and the holding of free and fair elections. Hoyte grudgingly accepted these conditions against the wishes of his party. Legal rule was restored after the October 1992 elections which were sponsored and accepted by the international community.
It should be noted that Guyana was at one time denied membership in the OAS because of opposition from Venezuela and other Latin states. Also, Cuba was expelled from the OAS at the behest of the U.S. after the revolution. Since then, virtually all of the American states have called for the restoration of Cuba to the American hemisphere of nations because the battle between the Soviets and the Americans is over.
Cheong stated that I should know that international law and diplomacy provide for action to be taken against countries that violate international law and conventions. Cheong does not seem to understand that sanctions were selectively taken against rulers or countries that violated human rights for political or strategic reasons. The fact that sanctions were taken against the PNC government does not make it legal. No court in Guyana would have ruled against Burnham on electoral matters.
Appeals to the Privy Council were abolished after the 1968 election-rigging that created a magic majority for the PNC, according to the London Times. So rigging could not be challenged and the U.S. was not prepared to pressure the PNC to restore democratic rule that would lead to the return of the PPP.
The U.S. and/or the global community intervened in countries when it is in their interests. For example, the U.S. intervened in The Philippines in late 1985 because its reputation was on the line. It could no longer close its eye to rigged elections. I had an exchange with the former Foreign Minister, Raul Manglapus of The Philippines when the Graduate Student Government, of which I was President, sponsored his lecture at CCNY. Manglapus was President Ferdinand Marcos’s Foreign Minister, but he broke with the dictator and joined the struggle in the U.S. for free
and fair elections in his homeland in much the same way that former Foreign Minister Fred Wills did against Burnham.
Manglapus was critical of the U.S. for supporting Marcos as Wills was of the U.S. backing Burnham. I also hosted Wills (a Prof with whom I had several discussions) at CCNY for lectures during my tenure in undergraduate and Graduate Students Government. Manglapus (who would be re-appointed Foreign Minister when Corey Aquino became the President), as Wills did for Guyana, called for the restoration of democracy and urged the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on the dictator to force democratic rule. The U.S. moved against Marcos when he rigged
the 1985 election because the entire country rose up against him. Guyanese were fearful of rebelling because Burnham would have slaughtered them.
Marcos was accused of killing the Opposition Leader Benigno Aquino
(similar to how Burnham was accused of killing Walter Rodney) whose
Widow had defeated Marcos, but he refused to concede defeat choosing instead
to rig the counting and claimed victory. Since the Aquinos were allies
of the U.S., replacing a loyal dictator with a democratic loyalist was
easy. But it was not that easy to replace a PNC dictator in Guyana that
was an ally of the U.S. even though a popular leader like Rodney was
murdered. The country was against Burnhamism but iron- fisted rule and
geo-politics allowed Burnham and Hoyte to avoid sanctions – not because
they were not considered illegal.
Secretary-General Ban Ki moon of the UN intervened in elections in
Zimbabwe, as it did also in Kenya and other African countries, because
the major international players were not opposed to such interventions.
During the Cold War period, such interventions (as should have happened in an oppressive fascist state such as Guyana were not contemplated because the U.S. did not want to lose an ally (whether legally in office or not) to apply sanctions against it.
