ONE would have believed that, given retired Brigadier David Granger’s military background which would have given him a comprehensive understanding of security matters, he would automatically support any State initiative that seeks to combat the criminal menace that threatens the social fabric of the State, inclusive of the well-being of citizens.Instead, he has, and for purely political reasons, refused support for major strategies in this direction, even leading what can be described as a parliamentary assault on Home Affairs Minister Rohee that resulted in a gag order against this executive for a while.
Certainly, this line against the government seeking to safeguard the nation is no strange coincidence, since Granger’s pattern has been one of non-cooperation in this the 10th Parliament, as Leader of the Opposition. This was even more clearly underlined in a recently aired interview he gave on the National Communication Network on matters pertaining to the nation’s security, the role of the Guyana Police Force, and that of the Guyana Defence Force.
Inevitably, he was asked about the role of the GDF. Of course, he gave the institution’s traditional function as that of being responsible for the nation’s territorial integrity and the protection of the national borders, inclusive of the suppression of piracy. But when asked whether he also favoured a domestic role for the army, he responded that the army had been “misused as some form of riot squad, keeping them around Georgetown”, and, “that the only reason the GDF had been deployed in certain areas during the troubles of the early 2003-2005 was because of an apparent weakness of the Police Force”. Emphatically, he stated that “they should not become involved in the traditional role of the police”.
It is known, well enshrined, that the role of the traditional military has been purely for national defence of sovereignty, and the protection of territorial borders, which role particularly means the expulsion of foreign invaders. This is well understood, since as an armed force, its orientation and practical training prepare any such institution for the most extreme of civil dangers – war.
But what if the State is threatened by violent criminal gangs which modus operandi is to commit mayhem, thereby undermining its integrity, and the concomitant safety of its citizens?
Is Mr. Granger, the foremost national security strategist, still holding to his argument that the army ought not to aid the civil force to combat and dispel such a threat? Such is his conclusive view, based on his interview.
Therefore, this means that the administration should have allowed the criminal terror of the early to mid-2000, to continue unabated, without seeking the assistance of the very GDF, which according to him, should not be involved in exercises against criminal activities. What a view emanating from one who more than most ought to know better! Imagine this coming from a supposed President-in –waiting!
There is no State that is threatened by such criminal terror of high intensity as Guyana at that time; which Executive would not have incorporated its armed forces to quell such an almost anarchic situation.
The traditional role of the military, as alluded to above, is not written in stone to the extent where the Executive cannot deploy its assistance in theatres of extreme security threat. One only has to draw attention to the aftermath of 9-11, when the United States Air Force(USAF) patrolled its airspace, with instructions to shoot down any commercial airline, if necessary. Also, the National Guard, a United States reserve military force, had been called out in various American states, during its civil rights upheavals in the 1960s. Then, there is the former Mexican Government of Felipe Calderon, who unleashed his military against the threat of narco-violence that threatened his country. Also, there are similar experiences in sister CARICOM States Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, where, because of these two island States runaway crime, their respective armed forces have often joined their sister police forces in law and order maintenance exercises. This is what obtained in States, where the civil order is threatened – assistance of the armed forces to rein in extremes. OBSERVER must ask Granger, what is wrong with such a strategy? Once the civil order is threatened with disintegration, it is only natural that a national army be called upon to safeguard its integrity.
Any State’s leader, faced with such extreme danger and who fails to seek the services of its army, is guilty of a most serious dereliction of national duty, akin to treason!
And here again, OBSERVER must accuse Granger of gross hypocrisy, that well known characteristic of deception and double standards, as it relates to his contention that the GDF must not be involved in domestic operations.
Sure thing, he would have recalled those years when the army had been involved in the very alien function of seizing ballot boxes from polling stations, for ends which are now so well enshrined in our history. He would have also recalled the very tragic culmination of this undemocratic act, on July 16, 1973, at number 63 Village on the Corentyne, when members of the GDF entered a polling station after closure and seized all the ballot boxes. In defence of the right that these boxes with their ballots ought to have remained and be counted at that polling station, in accordance with electoral rules, Bholanauth Parmanand and Jagan Ramessar were murdered in cold blood by soldiers.
The inevitable question to be asked is, why did Granger and his fellow officers, not object to such a practice that had clearly not been of the type designed as army functions? Clearly, this was neither domestic or of a military nature; but, instead one that had been wholly illegal – an activity that could never have been part of military procedures. It was a blatant act of hijacking the democratic process, thus stealing the electorates’ right of choice. The nation’s memory is very lengthy, Mr. Granger!
How can Granger, who has continued to level accusations against the Government for not ‘providing proper security for its citizens’, advocate the exclusion of the GDF from operations against criminal elements, but would have been part of the military decision-making process leading up to the seizure of ballot boxes, and the murders of those valiant men? Such, ever since, would have been an early warning sign of his anti-citizenry ideology. Coupled with this recent declaration on the role of the GDF – he clearly has positioned himself on the side of the criminal gangs, and not law and order.
His action is synonymous with that of the party he now leads, the PNC, known for its ingrained proclivity in support of criminal elements. Their current non-support for the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorrism(Amendment) Bill(AML/CFT), speaks volumes.