THIS column starts with two reminders and one revelation. First, I informed readers recently that I can do two daily columns because there is unmitigated ignorance coming from anti-government quarters. This is a goldmine for the analyst to rebut. And because of this relentless ignorance, I have to postpone my intended column and concentrate on the exposure of such anti-government tirades.

Such is the case with this column and the one on Charrandass Persaud published on Wednesday. I completed my reflections on other matters when the Charrandass thing and the Stabroek News’ (SN) lamentation of President Ali’s foreign policy in its last Sunday edition came up.

The second reminder is that last week I informed readers that Guyana has a disturbing irony. SN offers a quotidian diet of cynical editorial advice to the government, but you wonder why the newspaper does not advise itself on how to manage a media house.

SN is the only newspaper (maybe in the Caribbean) where you have to pay to read its online edition. And it can do so easily because 80 percent of its income comes from massive state placements. The private sector has drastically curtailed its spending on advertisements in the mainstream press and has gone over to social media, a trend worldwide.
Now for the revelation. The Sunday editorial of SN is written by a woman who lives in the UK. This has been the case for years now. What does this lady know about Guyana? Government ministers will hit the roof so hard and will get stuck and would not be able to come back down if they know who writes editorials for SN.

So let’s move to the essential argument of today’s article. I quote SN’s Sunday editorial: “The President deplored the disparity in support given by the developed world to Ukraine, compared to the Palestinian people and Haiti. Someone should explain to him that Ukraine is at war.” Someone should explain to SN the value of context. Context is everything in life. If you cannot understand context, you cannot understand life.

The Guyanese president was situating the role of the US in the context of the historical mistreatment of developing countries. He brought in the question of aid to Ukraine to establish the point that US aid has always been preferential and the developing countries have been at the losing end.

The issue was that the US has resources, but it does not spread those resources in a generous way. The mention of Ukraine was to underscore that point. Let’s quote from the editorial again: Ukraine is not in an analogous situation to either the Palestinians or Haiti, the last named of which requires a great deal more than just money to return to some modest level of rational government.” This is a mediocre understanding of world politics.

The President’s intention was to describe how big powers operate in the global system. The point was to argue that the US has a moral responsibility to Haiti, where the US has interfered for decades. The point was to emphasise how Haiti was neglected for over sixty years. The point was to make known that Ukraine held more importance for the US than a Caribbean country that the US has more relationship with than Ukraine.

For the editorial to say that Haiti requires a great deal more than money to return to social stability is to demonstrate the extreme limitation of international relations. Haiti never received the money from the US in the past that if it had it, Haiti would not have lost its social fabric. The Guyanese president was spot on making the comparison between Haiti and Ukraine.

Ignorance of international relations is a crime. The US is not the standard bearer of international morality. SN is ignorant to think countries are going to go rushing into the US arms to condemn Russia. SN needs to be told of the vast number of countries that abstained on condemning Russia when the resolution was put to the UN General Assembly. These countries are not pro-Russian. It is that they do not want to line up with the US when the US practices exactly what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Maybe it would have been best if the US had stayed out completely and let other big powers carry the fight against Russia. In that case more countries would have come on board.

For a country that invaded Afghanistan and stayed for 20 years and invaded Iraq and stayed for 8 years, and supports Israeli apartheid in Palestinian lands, and stifles Cuba, it will not be seen by the developing world as a torch bearer for good, international conduct.