In interest of good Guyana/USA relatons
Anyone familiar with the notorious history of active involvement by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the politics of destabilisation in Guyana, and how non-government agencies in the USA are funded to carry out “projects” overseas, including the Caribbean region, should pay serious attention to the current controversy that has led the democratically elected government of this nation to withdraw from a US-funded “democracy” programme.And President Barack Obama, now in his second term, should be advised to give urgent critical attention to the public arrogant behaviour of the current US Ambassador to Guyana, Mr Brent Hardt, on an issue fundamental to the preservation of the political sovereignty of this nation and maintenance of the bond of cherished friendship between these two countries.The unfolding political saga involving Ambassador Hardt’s surprising conduct, via statements in the local media, started with his reported statement that the US$1.2 million ‘Leadership and Democracy Project (LEAD)’ will go ahead, despite a public announcement of the government’s decision to withdraw its partnership in view of highly questionable funding activities.
Some aspects of the unsavoury politicking may help to explain the anxieties of the leaders of the two opposition parties — APNU’s David Granger and ACF’s Khemraj Ramjattan — to virtually compete in expressing support for continuation of the project, despite the government’s withdrawal.
The LEAD project is funded for implementation, by the USA, as an overseas programme of the International Republican Institute (IRI). The IRI and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have long been identified with links to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and consistent with their own domestic political perspectives and involvement.
The very experienced political thinker and Cabinet Secretary of many years, Dr Roger Luncheon, felt constrained to make public recently the government’s withdrawal from LEAD, based partly on funding of political activities for elements of both APNU and AFC. More importantly, as Ambassador Hardt would have been aware, the Cabinet of the Guyana Government had NOT yet approved this project.
As if to rub salt in the wound, the internationally experienced and politically well-connected Ambassador Hardt chose, nevertheless, to inform a section of the media that the LEAD project would be continued, knowing of the Guyana Government’s withdrawal.
If in their anxiety to benefit from the USAID-funded project, the opposition APNU and AFC show no interest in the preservation of Guyana’s sovereignty, Ambassador Hardt has been around in the world of diplomacy long enough to be aware of the implications of an act that shows contempt for the government and people of this nation.
He has been ambivalent in responding to official requests for clarification of statements attributed to him in sections of the media. Now that the leaders of the beneficiary APNU and AFC have come forward with their support for LEAD, even without government’s involvement, Ambassador Hardt must understand how very delicate a matter of sovereignty this development has become.
It is perhaps high time for a meeting between President Donald Ramotar and Ambassador Hardt. And it should be made pellucidly clear that if the USAID persists in going ahead with LEAD, as it now operates, and given the government’s case for withdrawal, then it would be a most regrettable example of crude violation of Guyana’ sovereignty as an independent State.
We hope better judgment prevails, all around, in the interest of maintaining good USA-Guyana relations.
