Dear Editor,

BINGO! Now we know, as I had suspected, that the reason for the venom targeted against Minister Harmon was, according to Stabroek News of April 11, 2016: “The concentrations of various powers in Minister Joe Harmon was last night cited by the Alliance For Change (AFC) as the key reason for difficulties that have flared up around the government, and it plans to raise it at Cabinet as a matter of ‘national importance’.”

In reality, the AFC is proposing that the business of governance (actions on the forensic audits, jobs, health, education, infrastructure works etc.), which would bring relief to the people who elected this coalition, must be set at the back-burner to address the reconfiguration of power.

What an obsession! I am persuaded to quote President L.F.S. Burnham on the question of the coalition: “Consensus is something you have if you cannot have agreement.” What was true in 1963 as the “Sandys Solution” — from British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys about proportional representation between the PNC+UF — is as true today with the APNU+AFC coalition.

What does the AFC think about representation of the mass number of APNU supporters who delivered the votes on May 11, 2015? Is the AFC proposing that Minister Harmon’s portfolio be redistributed? If so, to whom? Is the AFC changing the 60-40 formula?

Burnham knew that the challenge of consensus-building is a haunting and daunting task, as core principles of trust, integrity, leverage, and expectations wear thin.

After witnessing the media blitz against Minister Joe Harmon on alleged corruption (of which there is so far no hard evidence), reputable forensic auditors and letter writers are calling for his removal on grounds of his association with BK, and Bai Shan Lin on that “secret mission” to China.

The Government and the veterans in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have known that diplomatic protocol dictates that he should not have travelled on the same aircraft with the Bai Shan Lin delegation, since we have so many outstanding matters of national importance to resolve. More so, we should not appear to be weak and compromising, even though we are aware that China is the superpower with the greatest investments in Latin America and the Caribbean in recent times.

The urgent embrace of BK also raises red flags, but we do not fully know the Government’s motive; his sizeable campaign donation seems to be partly the basis of the relationship.

However, while I hold no brief for Harmon, I would recall the concept of Realpolitik, or Political Realism, best demonstrated by the United States, the #1 superpower, in the Iran Contra Affair, in which alliances of convenience were formed to meet specific short-term objectives. So one-time military dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega of Panama worked closely with the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “as one of the primary conduits for illicit weapons, military equipment, and cash destined for US-backed counter-insurgence forces throughout Central and South America”. The United States accomplished its objectives.

For those who are bent on castigating Harmon, permit me to give the public some more information about the halls of power: Ministers, Heads of Departments, and Directors are all advisors to the President. The Ministry of the Presidency may (not) have considered the optics of seizing Bai Shan Lin’s vehicles at the same time when a GoG delegation was headed to China. Which activity is in the greater long-term interest of Guyana? Should we prioritize our diplomatic relationship focusing on the benefits of China’s investments, or the short-term repossession of assets? Isn’t it more prudent and profitable to later re-assess and/or renegotiate the more shady deals of the past Government with Chinese companies and their affiliates?

I would urge every Guyanese to view President Obama’s YouTube video — on his town hall meeting last year in Jamaica — on the question of foreign investments, American and Chinese included, in Latin America and the Caribbean. We must be more strategic in the way we conduct business and foreign investments. As shocking as it may sound, maybe Minister Harmon made the right call, but lacked finesse.

Finally, Cabinet decisions are meant to be confidential, and then issued by memorandum for action by the various officials and departments. Who would have leaked Harmon’s call, and why? Who would have passed on the picture to the media, and why? Is there a more sinister plan to remove or weaken the President’s team or the Presidency? Is it to give President Granger a basket to fetch water?

It is my conviction that the AFC cannot be both government and government critic at the same time. They can’t have it both ways! With great excitement, I await news of the next Cabinet meeting, to see the cards of the Coalition.

Yours sincerely,
MAX WALLERSON