Dear Editor,

I read a letter written by Charrandass Persaud and published in your newspaper of the 26th June 2010, under the caption `The government cannot give an account of how many might be trafficked backtrack through the unmanned border with Suriname.’

The writer expresses disappointment with what he said he grasped as my statements in response to Guyana being placed on the tier 2 watch list of the US State Department report on Trafficking in Persons.

Either the writer did not comprehend what I said or I did not articulate the Guyana position well enough.

Guyana has never denied having perpetrators and victims of trafficking. Trafficking in persons is deviant, criminal behaviour and where there is a large enough collection of human beings there will be deviant criminal behaviour amongst them. Guyana is no different.

Our complaint has always been that Guyana does not have trafficking on the scale that should attract the attention of the United States and even if the US insisted on bestowing us with their attention we have repeatedly said we do not deserve to be on the tier 2 watch list.

The author himself has noted that a tier 2 watch list country is a country that is making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards set for the elimination of TIP but has failed to provide increasing efforts to combat trafficking; failed to make significant efforts based on anti trafficking reforms; or has seen a significant number or significantly increasing number of victims. He goes on to parrot the US’ report that “the placement of Guyana on the tier 2 Watch List has more to do with the extent of Government action to combat trafficking rather than the size of the problem.”

These two statements are wholly contradictory with each other and also with the provisions of the United States Trafficking and Victims Protection Act (the TVPA) by which the United States State Department is bound when assessing countries and writing this annual report.

The size or scale or extent of the problem must be seriously considered when determining whether a country is meeting or is making significant effort to meet the minimum standards to eliminate trafficking.

Section 110 (3) of the US’ (TVPA) states that when determining whether the government of a country is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking (the same minimum standards of which the author speaks) and consequentially what rank that country should be given, the Secretary of State shall consider—

(A) the extent to which the country is a country of origin, transit, or destination for severe forms of trafficking;

(B) the extent of noncompliance with the minimum standards by the government and, particularly, the extent to which officials or employees of the government have participated in, facilitated, condoned, or are otherwise complicit in severe forms of trafficking; and

(C) what measures are reasonable to bring the government into compliance with the minimum standards in light of the resources and capabilities of the government.

Clearly, as per A above, the scale of trafficking or as the report and the author says the “size of the problem” has to be considered. This is dictated, not by our law or my belief, but by the very law the US seeks to use to allow itself the authority to monitor and categorise a country.

In relation to B there has never been a report that any government official is complicit in the rime of trafficking and with respect to C the US Congress in its wisdom in the TVPA also indicates that what the government has done/is doing to combat this horror vis a vis its resources must be considered when judging that country. And indeed this makes perfect sense. The ignoring of these provisions would result in impractical conclusions and senseless recommendations such as that Guyana must open trafficking specific shelters.

Further, to say that because Guyanese travel back track to Suriname, if indeed this is true, means that we may have trafficking is to make a reckless conclusion and a quantum leap that is beyond rationalization. It is as preposterous as suggesting that children who come from the country to attend school in town can be trafficked and so including this as a finding in the 2010 report about Guyana.

The Government of Guyana has always said that there is no evidence to substantiate any claim that there are large numbers of victims in our country. We have repeatedly asked for the source of this information or at the very least the specific areas where this crime is supposed to be occurring. No answer except for the regurgitation of the original inaccurate report has been forthcoming.

The reports over the years have always complained that the Government has not prosecuted and convicted large numbers of persons for this offence and have indicated that larger numbers of prosecutions and convictions would be viewed favourably. This year, the report has gone further and libeled the Magistracy of this country by indicating that “it is reported” that Court officials are bribed for favourable decisions. Only Magistrates make decisions in these matters.

I would be interested in hearing from my good friend Charran how he feels about these findings and recommendations. Specifically, how does he feel about the complaint in the reports that because magistrates dismiss matters citing lack of evidence and victims’ withdrawal from the legal process, Guyana is demoted in ranking? How does he feel about the baseless claim, similar to the one that we have large numbers of victims, that our Magistrates are bribed to give favourable decisions? Surely Charran you are as offended as me that we would be told to prosecute and convict our Guyanese citizens if we are to satisfy a statistic, get a favourable report and climb the ranking order.

The efforts of the Government and people of Guyana including NGOs to combat trafficking in persons in the country are no secret. Laws passed, massive awareness sessions done, lawyers hired to prosecute matters in the Magistrates Court, shelter, care and counseling provided to victims, skills training done with alleged victims and persons vulnerable to trafficking, reunification of families, grants given to start businesses by persons vulnerable to trafficking are just a few of the things our country has done to eliminate trafficking from our midst. These efforts shall continue with vigour.

I would urge Charran to read the reports about Guyana over the years to see how they contradict each other, read the TVPA to see how its provisions are not being complied with, and to learn of his country’s efforts, and indeed to join these efforts, to eliminate trafficking in persons from our country.

Yours faithfully,
Priya Manickchand
Minister of Human Services and
Social Security