Historically, on the international stage, the entire country (government and opposition) always takes one position on the protection of Guyana’s territorial integrity and in advancing various border initiatives regarding Venezuela and Suriname. There has always been one position: a Guyana position on the complex issue of border policy. Now it seems as if from the opposition bench the PNCR wants to articulate and advance its own border policy. The PNCR has embarked on a campaign to undermine the national border policy and Guyana’s recourse to the Convention of the Laws of the Seas.
Undermine
The June 13 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by Mr. Robert Corbin of the PNCR and Suriname’s ex-coup leader, Desi Bouterse of the National Democratic Party is not in our national interest. The signing signals to the Surinamese local political division over our border policy. This is the first time that the PNCR has taken such an irrational and unpatriotic stance on border matters. Never in our post-Independence history has any political party sought to undermine the country’s border policy. By slipping across the border to sign an MOU is an attempt to undermine the current border policy of this nation. Whose side is Mr. Corbin on anyway?
That this irregular and most undiplomatic behaviour, which follows on the heels of recent progress on the composition of the arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas to resolve the Guyana /Suriname offshore maritime dispute, is no mere coincidence. Mr. Corbin, when he signed the document in Paramaribo (since Bouterse cannot leave Suriname as he is wanted internationally for drug trafficking), was fully aware of the immense benefits all Guyanese would derive from the hydrocarbon (including oil) resources in the disputed maritime area. He was also aware of the details of the country’s position and the importance of a common and united Guyana position. The Sunday Stabroek editorial (no friend of the PPP/C Government) of June 20, 2004 captioned: “One Voice” was baffled by this anti-national position of Corbin and his party. “…no opposition party in this country should be engaging in its own separate diplomacy over the border; there should only ever be one national border policy, and the legitimate authority to define and execute that policy is the government of the day.”
Ignore
Mr. Corbin and his party on February 25, 2004, boycotted a parliamentary consultation called by the President of Guyana to discuss the country’s invoking of Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas to resolve the offshore maritime dispute. Congress Place then launched an anti-Guyana campaign against the administration’s efforts to achieve some settlement to the long-standing dispute. The PNCR described the Government’s move to resolve the dispute as `diversionary’ from local issues. Coincidentally, the Surinamese were also making the same argument. The PNCR and the Surinamese might have been reading from the same tip-sheet.
The PNCR cannot complain with justification that it has no avenue to contribute to the country’s border policy, both formally and informally. Formally, at the level of the Parliament, there is a sectoral committee on Foreign Relations chaired by PNCR frontbencher, Clarissa Reihl. There is always an open line to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and even the Office of the President to make suggestions. Informally, past PNC-regime officials are currently engaged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to work on Guyana’s case. The Sunday Stabroek editorial notes: “It just so happens, however, that in the particular instance of the Suriname border, while there has been plenty to criticize in the administration’s approach over the years, there can be no quarrel with the more recent decision to take the maritime dispute to Hamburg” (arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas).
Strange Alliance
The obvious question is: Why would the PNCR and Corbin seek to align themselves with Mr. Bouterse? The answers perhaps could be found in Bouterse’s history and background.
Bouterse was a military officer who took power in a bloody coup in 1980. His military government lasted for a number of years that saw opposition and other democratic elements being killed including 1982 “December murders” and 1986 Negro Village of Moiwana events. Like under any undemocratic and military regimes, the country was in a state of turmoil. His rule also marked the start of a bloody civil war. During that time, the military and Mr. Bouterse were suspected of being involved in a number of illegal activities including the trafficking of narcotics and weapons.
In 1999, Bouterse was convicted in absentia for drug trafficking. There is an international warrant out for his arrest, as such he cannot travel outside of Suriname lest he be arrested and sent to prison in the Netherlands.
Is this the same Corbin, the law and order `high priest’ who now links up with Bouterse?
The PNCR Leader, if he wishes to make a contribution to the national border policy, must do so at home using the various mechanisms and even the media. Sneaking off across the border to sign an MOU with an international outlaw and projecting division on the protection of our border is tantamount to an act of national betrayal.
It would have been more useful if Mr. Corbin had instead lent full support for the efforts of the law enforcement agencies to stem the flow of narcotics and illegal weapons from Suriname. The security forces have found that most of the high-powered weapons used by criminals in the 2002 /2003 crime wave and more recently, were brought in from neighbouring Suriname.
The PNCR membership must again take note of the increasing signs of pathetic leadership being offered to them and where this can take Guyana and all Guyanese.