Concerns, threats and options
THE position articulated publicly last Wednesday by United States ambassador to Guyana, Roland Bullen, should prove significant in diffusing anticipated tension in normally good relations between his government in Washington and the administration of President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Of Caribbean roots, and one of the more experienced American diplomats in this region, Bullen, formerly the number two man at the Bridgetown-based U.S. diplomatic mission for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, spoke against the earlier warning from State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, of possible aid reduction to Guyana.
Boucher’s warning was linked to his government’s disapproval of Ronald Gajraj’s resumption of duties as Minister of Home Affairs.

Gajraj was unanimously exonerated - on the basis of lack of “any credible evidence” - by a high-level three-member probe commission of the very serious allegation of criminal involvement with a phantom ‘death squad’.

The Jagdeo administration, therefore, felt it had an obligation to invite him to end his leave of absence and resume duties, which he gladly did. Then followed the statements of “concerns” and “threat” (in case of the U.S.A.) from the international donor nations.

Personally, as I have otherwise stated, I think a more sophisticated approach by the government, based on greater sensitivity to public opinion, could have been a minor ministerial reshuffle in which Mr. Gajraj returns to the Cabinet but with a different portfolio. There are such governance precedents in and out of the Caribbean. The U.S.A. and European Union know this.

Also, as previously argued, it is not for any foreign government, American, European, Canadian or else, to dictate the composition of the Cabinet of a sovereign state in the Caribbean - for whatever reason. Now Ambassador Bullen has, in his own way, made that pellucidly clear, while underscoring his government’s right to also express its dissenting views in relation to Mr. Gajraj’s return to as Minister of Home Affairs.
He made a comparison with strident criticisms by CARICOM against the U.S.-led war on Iraq, with the public criticism that came from Boucher on Gajraj’s return to the Cabinet as Home Affairs Minister.

I am not certain of this spin; that the comparison is altogether fair. As the ambassador would be aware, CARICOM’s opposition was rooted in the implications for world peace by the arrogant sidelining by the powerful of the United Nations Security Council in that pre-emptive war on Iraq. No threats in relations were made. Small and poor as we are in this Third World region, it would have been plain silly to do so.

At the same time, Mr. Boucher, in carrying out his function as State Department spokesman, should have been aware that he was directly intruding in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state in seeking to determine the composition of its Cabinet - or lose financial aid.

He could well have been misled into doing so without any prior attempt at engagement - through the U.S. embassy in Georgetown - to express Washington’s displeasure - as it may be.

What is of relevance now is the difference between the reassuring statement of Ambassador Bullen and the actual disbursement of already committed U.S. aid.
Friendly donor countries to the Caribbean do have a right to express their concerns/disagreements with governments of the region on issues they feel impact on their own relations.

But I maintain that there is a qualitative difference in expressing such concerns in a sophisticated manner than resorting to arrogant, “big stick” politics without any prior attempt at engagement.

Stating his government’s disapproval over “serious procedural irregularities”, Boucher warned of “possible reduction in the range of assistance we provide the government”.

He may have expediently forgotten the row among U.S. lawmakers and media exposures that preceded endorsement of President Bush’s choice of Ambassador John Negroponte to head America’s vastly new intelligence infrastructure in view of his controversial past of alleged involvement in gross human rights violations, including torture, while he served as a diplomat in Latin America.

It bears emphasis to state that within CARICOM Cabinet ministers have long been involved in influencing the issuing of gun licences and intelligence gathering,

But this is not a culture that should be encouraged, or rationalised by small states claiming to be committed to democracy and good governance, because the hands of the rich and powerful are unclean while they point accusing fingers at the poor and weak.

However, last week Ambassador Bullen did more than speak optimistically of sustained U.S. aid for Guyana’s social sector. He signalled increased financial assistance for the tremendous challenge to effectively battle the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

In alluding to Boucher’s hint that the U.S. may have to review its pledged aid of approximately US$4 million to Guyana, especially as this relates to law enforcement, Bullen hinted his own message for the Guyana Government to ponder:

As reported in the ‘Guyana Chronicle’ of Friday, April 22, Bullen said that they (the U.S.) have expressed their opinion (on the Gajraj affair) and it is up to the government of Guyana to decide how it would react, since it has the power to appoint ministers, and not the diplomatic community.

A significant coincidence is that a day after Bullen’s assessment of Guyana-U.S. relations, Head of the Georgetown-based European Delegation of the European Commission, Ambassador Per Eklund, was disclosing an allocation by the EU of some 13.4 million Euros for Guyana to have a new digital weather radar early warning station as part of a larger EU-funded programme for the Caribbean region.

The EU had also earlier expressed “disappointment and disquiet” - as distinct from any threat - over aspects of the Chang Commission’s report on alleged improper conduct by Gajraj.

For its part Canada, which like the U.S.A. had hastily revoked - prior to the establishment of the probe commission - the visas they had respectively issued to Gajraj, had already expressed its own concerns over ministerial “procedural irregularities” but reaffirmed “it remains committed to Guyana’s long-term development”.

In the circumstances, the next move may be for President Jagdeo who has, among credible options, a ministerial reshuffle, while the U.S. State Department engages in its own adjustment - away from “big stick” politics against Guyana.