THE PPP AND THE FALKLAND/ MALVINAS DISPUTE

March 25, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

The Guyana government was correct in not granting a high-level audience to a recent delegation from the Falkland Islands or Malvinas.  It would have been awkward for either the Foreign Minister or the President of Guyana to have met with the visiting delegation.

Such a meeting would have sent the wrong political and diplomatic signals and could have been interpreted as a reversal of the position that the PPP government has taken in a number of Latin America bodies which have addressed their minds to the position of the disputed islands

The PPP, even before it assumed office, has always recognized Argentina’s sovereignty over those islands. It has in a number of regional bodies supported Argentina’s claim to the islands.

Britain on the other hand wants self- determination for the islands so that it can avoid returning them to Argentina.  It was the correct call of the government not to have met that delegation lest it be construed that the government was giving tacit recognition to British control of the islands and its stubborn refusal to return the islands to Argentina.

The British are intent on preventing such a return and are using the idea of the islands’ right to self- determination as the basis of frustrating the return of sovereignty over the islands to Argentina. But the British have never made out the same case about self- determination when it came to Northern Ireland. It is therefore practicing double standards and is seeking to keep the islands as colonies or protectorates.

The recent referendum where the residents of the islands voted to stay British is just part of a campaign by the British government to avoid handing over the islands to Argentina which has a just political claim to the sovereignty.

It was disappointing that APNU, with so many of its big wigs being strong admirers of Forbes Burnham and his foreign policy, actually met with the visiting delegation. It is hoped that when they did meet they would have made it clear about Burnham’s position on the issue of the disputed islands.

Forbes Burnham opposed the Argentine seizure of the Falkland/ Malvinas islands while they were under British control but he supported Argentine sovereignty over the islands.

Burnham had no choice when it came to the Argentina’s decision to use force in its attempt to reclaim the islands. He abhorred the use of such force and condemned it even though he recognized Argentina’s claim to the disputed islands. Burnham had no choice but to oppose the use of force to settle a dispute because Guyana was facing a threat from Venezuela and therefore it would have found itself in a knot if it supported the actions of Argentina which has initiated the use of force.

Burnham’s position on the islands has often been misinterpreted to mean that he supported British claims to the islands. He did not. He was opposed to the use of force as a means to settle dispute, and the reason for his stance is obvious considering his own predicament concerning Venezuela historic claim to the Essequibo.

There was no ambiguity on the other hand when it came to the PPP. The PPP has always recognized Argentina’s sovereignty to the islands and as an opposition party was opposed to the British action to retake the islands.

Since then the PPP has forged strong ties with Latin America which overwhelmingly recognizes Argentinean sovereignty over the islands. The PPP therefore cannot be seen as giving high- level recognition to any delegation lest this also be construed as giving recognition to secessionists.

The PPP government therefore has nothing to answer about when it comes to its recent actions concerning the visiting delegation. The PPP, in and out of government, has been consistent.

Guyana is no longer a British colony and is not obligated to recognize self- determination for the people of Falklands/ Malvinas.

It is APNU which now has to explain why it met with the visiting delegation and what inferences can be drawn from that meeting. Has the PNCR, the senior partner in APNU, the position of its founder Leader and is it now willing to argue for a case of secession by the people of the disputed islands?