The President should attack the problems not the messenger

Stabroek News
Thursday, March 15th 2007
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516112

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 … vibrant free media … independent branches of government, and a well-established rule of law" that work as correctives. To me this is the most that any citizen of a country can ask for (especially accountability) and are indeed principles and realities I think every country should strive for.

While I am no defender of the US (they can do that themselves very well) and I am certainly no fan of this current administration (in fact I consider both the president and vice president of the U.S. to be war criminals and think they should be tried as such or at the very least, impeached and forced to resign respectively) I find Mr Jagdeo's comparing of the atrocities in Guyana with the atrocities in the US ridiculous given the difference in size and wealth of the two countries.

As far as the smuggling of drugs is concerned, the US congress has numerous times acknowledged that the enormous resources required for them to deal with the massive influx of illegal aliens pouring across the borders every day, weakens their ability to fully confront the drug smuggling across those same borders. What is impeding Mr Jagdeo from securing his borders from smugglers, just financial aid from the US? Also, is he saying that because no one lives on his borders he cannot have them patrolled?

Mr Jagdeo made the statement that anyone can walk into the US and invest. This is not true. As far back as 1991 the Institute for International Economics stated that in the US high-tech and defence industries, foreign direct investors have to comply with special regulations and they "may face even stricter restrictions in the future". In today's post 9/11 era, I am certain a lot more screening is being done. Just last year the US congress blocked a deal where a company based in the United Arab Emirates sought to purchase port management businesses in six major US seaports. Mr Bush argued vigorously for the approval of the deal claiming that denial would send the wrong signal to US allies, but the congress prevailed and the deal never went through.

Anyway, if screening would be a deterrent to laundering and other crimes why would an honest investor object to it? Airlines screen passengers everyday, yet serious travellers realise this is something they have to live with if all are to feel safe.

Is Mr Jagdeo in criticizing the report for pointing out a perception of corruption in Guyana saying that there is none? What planet has he been living on? And please Mr Jagdeo, remind me why local media should care more about who the US is detaining than they should care about who their own government is detaining unlawfully.

In the executive branch of the US government, Colin Powell resigned on his own volition and Condi Rice is still on the payroll.

President Jagdeo ignored major areas of the report. Unlawful killings by police, no development in allegations of police killings in previous years. The Russian made AK 47s still out there, which by the way seem to have resurfaced in certain recent robberies.

Criticising the US for publishing a report on Guyana that points out its negatives is not going to solve Guyana's problems. Even if the report were not published the problems would still be there. The truth stands. It needs no formulation. It is plain for all to see. Attack the problems not the messenger.

Yours faithfully,

Stafford Wills