Dear Editor,
Where will Guyana draw the line between treasonous expression and free expression? This question is of greater import for Guyanese now as Venezuela has become alarmingly aggressive in pursuit of its border claim against us.

In terms of abstract doctrine, Title 20, Article 318 of our laws say treason condemns anyone who owes allegiance to the State who, whether in Guyana or elsewhere, who adheres to Guyana’s enemies by giving them aid or comfort shall be guilty and liable to suffer death by hanging.

In my opinion, the harshness of the penalty works against the intent of the law as only the harshest of persons would wish to see someone put to death for talking without thinking of the consequences, or worse as in the case of the ‘influencers’, unable to comprehend the gravamen of their words and actions.

Trade Unionist Lincoln Lewis wrote “Parliament meeting to discuss Venezuela’s saber rattling must also discuss the idea floated by Bharrat Jagdeo to give Venezuela passage to the Atlantic, via Guyana’s territory that country is coveting.”

This is Lewis’ xenophobic (understandably) interpretation of what Jagdeo said; what was being shared did not originate with Jagdeo but has been a bone of contention long before Jagdeo was born. The overlapping Economic Exclusive Zones of Guyana, Trinidad, and Barbados, effectively left Venezuela without a right to a sea lane to the Atlantic.

In 1990, Trinidad signed a treaty, a delimitation of marine and submarine areas, which some experts say has implications for Guyana and Barbados. There have been numerous meetings between Guyana and Venezuela on the Geneva Agreement, at these talks much had been made of Venezuela’s ‘landlocked’ status. When Jagdeo said ‘we’ in the context of border discussions, Jagdeo was referring to Guyana and to negotiations that occurred when he was in primary school; all of these discussions are part of the records held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as these talks were conducted by our diplomats.

As President, in 2004, Jagdeo invoked the UNCLOS mechanism and took Suriname to the United Nations Tribunal of the Law of the Sea which led to our current maritime boundaries being settled in our favour at the Arbitral Tribunal in Hamburg, in 2007.

My main issue with Lincoln Lewis is his timing and motivation; he is using the current tension along the border to take a jab at Jagdeo and, I would ask what would be the outcome if we all behave with such selfishness at a time of national crisis?

Should I try to score points against Burnham for signing the Geneva Agreement? Was it not Burnham’s greed for power at any cost that made him sign us into this quagmire? Why would Burnham have acknowledged a border dispute that was settled before he was born? And, I can point to the turning point in the relations between the two countries when David Granger called Venezuela “a monkey on our backs.” That idiom was not well received by the nation that was our largest aid partner at the time (PetroCaribe).

When Granger decided on the ICJ route, he received full public support from the PPP/C and all right-thinking Guyanese; no one chose to play petty politics. Lincoln Lewis has cost thousands of Guyanese jobs with his bluff and bluster. Rusal, who Lewis said could not live without our ‘black gold’ variety of Bauxite pulled out of the country because of Lewis; 800 jobs gone, Troy Resources, 375 jobs, Alcoa 3000+ jobs. The only people he never had a problem with were Omai, who gifted him a car.

Editor, we cannot make the words and actions of the less thoughtful or capable treasonous, we must however seek a balance that curtails the amount of comfort they give to the enemies of our nation. I have not given examples from the ‘influencers’ who have moved from being panty models to making pronouncements on matters of state because they are beneath our dignity, ignorance from the ignorant. I hope someone can share this simple message with them, “Now is not the time to try to score petty points and give even the slightest bit of joy to our country’s enemies.” Failure to comprehend may one day force even the most liberal of us to rethink what can/should be allowed as ‘free speech.

Sincerely,
Robin Singh