Pride and talks
Editorial
Stabroek News
April 11, 1999
New dialogue proposals have been fluttering down on the Guyanese
public again. Let's have two entirely new negotiating teams, said
President Jagan in a letter to Mr Hoyte last Tuesday; let's forget about
discussing government/opposition issues, and talk instead about national
policies.
It is unfortunate that this initiative was ever made public. For one thing,
it encouraged a public response from the other side - which it got - when
at this stage, with all these egos on the line, a little quiet diplomacy
would have seemed a far more sensible way to proceed. And for another,
it ironically achieved the opposite effect from the one desired, since by
bypassing the central problem altogether, it implied that the PPP/Civic
was unprepared to break the talks logjam. If nothing else, the President
almost invited Mr Hoyte's charge at his press conference on Thursday
of engaging in nothing more than a public relations exercise.
If earlier in the week the worst that could have been said about
President Jagan's latest proposals was that they were tangential to the
resolution of the current impasse, by Friday they had become an animal
of an altogether different hue. Dr Luncheon told the media at his
fortnightly press conference that the Government was only willing to
resume the dialogue talks with the PNC on an equal basis if
governmental matters were excluded from the discussions.
This was an astonishing revelation which prima facie is at odds with what
President Jagan had written. In her letter to Mr Hoyte she had indicated
that she would like the dialogue to concentrate on national issues and
policies - race relations and legislation to concretise equal opportunities,
the national development strategy, national health and education policy,
public sector reform, taxation policy, social safety net creation and
poverty alleviation, among other things. If the list above does not
constitute governmental matters, then what, in the name of heaven,
does? Or is there no contradiction between her letter and the statements
made by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, because she was
making the unexpressed assumption that the PPP/Civic and the PNC
would not be meeting as equals?
There can be no one in the country who does not know by now that it was
Dr Luncheon's remarks at the last dialogue encounter which brought the
discussions between the two leading parties to a halt. Dr Luncheon made
clear on that occasion that as far as he was concerned, the PNC and the
PPP/Civic were not negotiating as equals, an assertion to which his
counterpart, Mr Carberry raised unambiguous objection. An issue which
began as a relatively minor matter, therefore, and which could have been
easily resolved in the initial stages by some form of diplomatic retreat on
the part of the PPP/Civic or Dr Luncheon himself, has now become a
major impediment to further discussion between the parties.
Considering that the governing party is in the wrong, both in terms of
international negotiating conventions (there would have been no
Northern Ireland or Palestinian/Israeli agreements, for instance, if the
PPP/Civic principle had been applied) and in relation to the Herdmanston
Accord and the St Lucia Statement, one has to wonder about their
intractability on this issue.
One hypothesis is that they have made a categorical error. In recent
times they have elected to interpret the status dispute between the
parties as having reference only to the selection of representatives to
state boards. (Front-page Comment, Mirror, March 24, 1999). From the
point of view of the record, the transcript of the last talks led by Dr
Luncheon on the one side, and Mr Carberry on the other does not bear
out this interpretation of what transpired. "I do not recognize in this
room or any room for that matter that we speak as equals," said Dr
Luncheon.
However, what is on the record is not the point here. Could it be that the
PPP/Civic has confused what is essentially a procedural issue with the
subject matter of the talks? Is it possible that they feel that if they
conform to international procedural protocols they would then be bound
to concede equality to the demands of the PNC on the substantive
matters under discussion? If so, they are mistaken. It does not follow
that because the PNC are their equals in the negotiations all their
demands have to be conceded, or for that matter, are even reasonable.
The longer the governing party avoids confronting the fundamental
problem, the more difficult it will become to find an acceptable
compromise. Civil society in conjunction with most Guyanese want the
dialogue to restart; in order for that to happen, the PPP/Civic has to bite
the bullet, and the PNC must not demand anything humiliating. Far too
much has been said by both sides in public already. Let the politicians
pay attention to the people; forget pride, forget grandstanding and start
talking again.
|