Dear Editor,
I am grateful to the Stabroek News for printing the website address where I was able to read the full Human Rights Practices report on Guyana by the US Department of State. I found the report quite illuminating and was surprised to read later in SN about the President of Guyana ranting and raving before army top brass against the US for publishing the report. In his typical “in your face” style, he seems to have put on quite a performance before this group who were apparently either too loyal or too polite, though I rather suspect the former (although there could have been another reason – intimidated) not to clap and laugh at the appropriate times.
Almost sounding like Venezuela’s Chavez, he lambasted the US for having the audacity to “lecture” him or his government. But from reading the report unless I am missing something, it seemed more like straight facts and reads as if the authors were trying to be as fair and balanced as possible. I did not see any parts of the report where the US even suggested much less lectured Guyana on what they should be doing. In any event, remember that although Chavez stood up at the UN and called Bush the devil, he turned right around and shipped oil (even if just to embarrass Bush) to the various regions of the US in need of such assistance. The most Jagdeo would probably do after criticizing the US is turn around and stretch his hand out to the US. That’s pitiful!
I take note that the President did not seem to directly refute most of the major findings, except perhaps the part that said Roger Khan was given a timber concession and he said that he would pass legislation to screen future investors.
While not refuting most of the real findings he rants and raves that the US government itself was also committing many of these same evils. But before reading the report on Guyana specifically I took the time to read the introduction to the issue, which reported on all the countries of the world. In this the state department acknowledged that the report was being published “at a time when our own record, and actions we have taken to respond to the terrorist attacks against us, have been questioned,” and stated their commitment to continual improvement. They then went on to state that although their democratic system of government was not infallible, it was accountable and they lauded their “robust civil society
