THERE must be reasons, why mostly, former heads of state, are tasked with the important responsibility of heading international observer missions, to states where there are national elections. One can surmise among the many reasons, is that these persons, given their backgrounds of state craft, would be enough of a firm platform in understanding such milieus, in terms of their actual mission, that should be guided by impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality.

With regard the scandalous conduct of all of the international observer missions, at the March 02 national polls, and which inconclusiveness, because of the unmistakable interference and open bias of these groups, towards the criminal actions of the PPP/C opposition party, those responsible for the constitution of such future missions, must begin to re-examine the criterium, particularly those for the intended leaders of such missions.
The Organisation of American States(OAS) Election Observer Mission has been a perfect example, led by a leader whose total post-polling day conduct, both personal and official, gives an open window to the type of election mission leader that must not in the future be entrusted with such a critical responsibility.

For an international election observer head to be a house guest of the leader of the opposition, a contestant in the national elections which he, as head of the important OAS mission, had come to observe in an impartial, neutral and objective manner, must raise all the red flags. But worst yet, one has to question his personal morality, particularly given what had been his very close alignment with the Jamaican drug lord, Dudus Coke, whose close association to Bruce Goldingís Jamaica Labour Party, saw him delivering the votes of Cokeís constituency to the JLP. No doubt, that Golding, then Prime Minister, felt obligated during his official tenure, to secure a United States law firm for the defence of Cokeís battle to avoid extradition to the United States on charges of cocaine trafficking.

And so, one must ask the appropriate question: Should one have expected professional and above-board conduct from such an observer mission leader? Absolutely not.

Editor, this resulted in Golding having to resign both as JLP leader, and prime minister of his island state, resulting in the defeat of the incumbent JLP and its new leader in the then due island election poll.

This is the same Bruce Golding, void of any personal decency, and respect for the integrity of his undertaking, who recently led the OAS Observer Mission to Guyana. In fact, it is very fair to say, that given the very questionable role of the OAS in some past hemispheric elections, that there is no surprise of Goldingís selection as Mission head.

His prior statements, alleging electoral fraud by the Guyana Elections Commission(GECOM) are already known, despite not giving any credible evidence to support his nebulous claims. Now, he has again, pointed fingers at GECOM, demanding the removal of its CEO, DCEO, and RO from the proposed recount process. One wonders, who give his mission such a permission, since this is yet another blatant act of interference in Guyanaís internal affairs, and a further attempt at destabilizing the constitutional process. Moreover, the entire episodes of Bruce Goldingís pronouncements on our national polls, unmistakably parrots the well-known Bharat Jagdeo line.

Editor, it is unbelievable that which the OAS, and the other Observer Missions have done after March 02, in a nation that is sovereign. Revealingly, one must point to their blind eyes and silence at the atrocity of an invasion of the GECOM Command Centre, and the PPP/C-fomented violence on the West Coast of Berbice. Add the well-known reported electoral irregularities, such as stuffed ballot boxes; persons being allowed to vote without any means of identification; and more electors than those on the actual voting lists, in PPP/C constituencies. These serious instances have not been commented on or mentioned in the OAS official report. This absence, clearly explains what kind of mission Golding brought to Guyana ñ one that was markedly partisan in the entirety of its actions. They, especially, have been a dangerous tragedy to the national electoral process of March 02.

Guyana, as a sovereign nation, is better off without such dishonest missions with their prejudiced and biased agendas, and tainted heads, such as Bruce Golding. His very clear biased conduct, clearly exposed a partisan agenda, promoted and prosecuted on behalf of the discredited PPP/C and its former regime, which recorded facts are well documented throughout the CARICOM, inclusive of Goldingís island state, as well as throughout the Hemisphere.

Absolutely, Bruce Golding came with an agenda, which has played no small role in pushing the nation to the precipice of undeclared results.

Because of such a well-publicized display by Bruce Golding and his OAS Mission, of naked partisanship; untold bias, and open prejudice, election observer missions have taken on an entirely new meaning. Nations must now think twice as to their presence for national election observation purposes.
Regards
Earl Hamilton