On Wednesday Minister of Foreign Affairs Karen Cummings told the media that calls by the international community relative to the matter of holding elections in Guyana were unnecessary. By the time she had concluded her statement it had become clear that she had things the wrong way around, since it was what she had to say, rather than what outside entities had to say, which was unnecessary.
Her concerns centred firstly, on the fact that various nations and international bodies had publicly urged the government to abide by the constitution as it related to the calling of elections; and secondly, that such statements had created a perception that the issuance of a poll date proclamation had been done under the threat of sanctions. Whether her avowals to the contrary dispelled such a notion in the mind of a cynical public, however, is very much open to question.
Dr Cummings’s opening salvo revolved around the view that one country should not interfere in the internal affairs of another. She told the press: “Everybody is free to [have their own views]… But you know, we strive to ensure that we don’t interfere in other person’s territory. We maintain our territorial integrity and our sovereignty and even the Caricom’s position is non-interference, non-intervention.”
Leaving aside the minor matter that maintaining our territorial integrity and sovereignty is not entirely germane to the current issue, the Minister should be reminded that this country has not recoiled from voting at the OAS on the internal affairs of Venezuela. In January this year, for example, Guyana was one of 19 nations which voted in favour of a resolution not to recognise the legitimacy of Mr Nicolás Maduro’s new term as President. Among other provisions of that resolution, there was an article calling for “… new Presidential elections with all necessary guarantees of a free, transparent, and legitimate process to be held at an early date attended by international observers.” It was not the only one. In any event, it makes the Minister’s current protestations sound somewhat hollow.
It might be mentioned in passing too, that developed countries sometimes comment on each other’s internal affairs, and not just those of developing ones. President Trump’s tweets may be an egregious example, but President Obama, for instance, expressed his view prior to the referendum that Britain should stay in the EU, and that in the event of a Brexit vote she would go to the back of the queue in terms of trade negotiations with the US.
As for Caricom’s reserve in relation to the matter of Guyana’s elections, that has a long tradition, one exception as far as anyone knows, apart. That was in early 1986, when the organization’s leaders extracted a commitment from President Hoyte that the next elections would be free and fair, and would be monitored by international observers. The details of that encounter were not made public at the time, and did not emerge until many years after the event.
One presumes too Dr Cummings is aware that at the present time Caricom is a split body; some of its members belong to Alba, the Venezuelan organization created by the late Hugo Chávez. She will know too that they have received substantial economic assistance from both occupants of Miraflores. They support Mr Maduro and his government and unfailingly vote against OAS resolutions pertaining to Venezuela. Evincing a greater predilection for consistency than has characterised the Minister’s pronouncements, they are not likely now to move from a position of non-interference in the affairs of other states.
It seems not just adhering to the rule of law was raised by other international organisations, but also the possibility of sanctions. including, it would seem, the UN. The Minister was quoted as saying: “I spoke to the Secretary-General [of the United Nations] and so on and he was happy to say that in Guyana there is no war. I mean, we have a little problem here and there…but there are no lives being lost and so on. I don’t think we need sanctions at this time because we are very peaceful citizens.”
This is the first time the citizenry is learning that the possibility of Guyana being subject to sanctions was discussed with Secretary General Guterres, so clearly the matter was out there in the international ether. Exactly how he responded to her argument that sanctions were not needed because “there is no war” Dr Cummings did not reveal. Suffice it to say that there might be serious breaches of the rule of law and yet there might be no violence, something which Mr Guterres would have been very conscious of, even if she was not.
In addition, the Foreign Minister did concede that there was a “misunderstanding” with the Commonwealth “some” of which – although not all of it, it seems − they were able to “clear up”. She blamed this on the Opposition Leader, who would have been “proffering different statements”. She cannot be so naïve as to believe that the public would take this explanation seriously, although there is little doubt Mr Jagdeo would have been relaying his complaints to Marlborough House.
That said, unless Dr Cummings is unusually ill informed for someone in her position, it is difficult to believe that she would not know that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group would have been monitoring developments in Guyana in any case, since it is a custodian of the political values of the organisation, including democracy and human rights, and meets on a regular basis to discuss member states. Furthermore, there are serious sanctions which can be applied to a member in the event of breaches. As a signatory to the Harare Declaration and associated Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme, the Minister simply cannot talk about non-interference in the internal affairs of states in this case.
Similarly, in the instance of the OAS, which it appears is the source of the popular view in some quarters that the threat of sanctions persuaded President David Granger to issue a proclamation. The day after the OAS had said it was looking forward to a proclamation of March 2 as the date for the now overdue general elections here, and had urged an end to the political uncertainty that gripped the country, the President made his announcement.
Prior to that, of course, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union had admonished the Guyana government for operating unconstitutionally and had said that funding for projects could be affected.
As said above, Minister Cummings denied that the threat of sanctions played any role in the declaration of a poll date, because, she averred, the government is committed to adherence to the law. She also repeated several times that the administration was observing the rule of law, and at one point told the media: “At the Cabinet level, at our caucus level, we have decided that we will obey the rule of law and we will continue until the next president is sworn in.”
Well this is the crux of the matter: the government prior to the proclamation of the elections date has simply not been observing the rule of law, since it has not been adhering either to the constitution or court judgements. The Minister’s answer to this, it seems, is that “there are various interpretations of the law.” This, along with her meanderings about what happened after December 21 is really not good enough. It is in any case just a rehash of what the government has been saying all along. And it still doesn’t answer the question as to why the President of the administration which she serves has now decided to issue a proclamation about an elections date when it wasn’t so disposed before.
The Minister would have been better advised to stay silent.
