In our Friday edition we reported that the PNCR and the National Democratic Party (NDP) of Suriname had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) resolving to work for a peaceful settlement of the border dispute. It also called on both governments to avoid the temptation to manipulate the issue for narrow political interests, and to create an atmosphere conducive to rapprochement, so that the resources of the two countries could be exploited for the benefit of the citizens of both.
This MOU, the media was told at a press conference held by the PNCR on Thursday, had been the initiative of the NDP, which considered that unnecessary tensions had developed in Suriname, where people were being led to believe that Guyana was on a deliberate path of confrontation with their country. Mr Corbin was reported as saying that there was deep concern that the increased tensions were being used for narrow political interests in domestic politics.
Well all of this is very extraordinary. In the first place, 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. It is really neither here nor there whether that government has discharged its mandate in this regard effectively or otherwise; that is something for an internal debate, not for independent political action in collaboration with an external entity. It just so happens, however, that in the particular instance of the Suriname border, while there has been plenty to criticise 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.
In the second place, since the media was told effectively that this was all about Paramaribo politics and not about Georgetown politics, one has to ask what this nation's largest opposition party is doing getting involved in the domestic situation of Suriname over the issue of the border? One might have thought that that was something to be avoided at all costs.
When Mr Bouterse made his appeal to the PNCR, did Mr Corbin not stop to consider what it was that the Suriname leader really had as his motive? And even if he did, given the complexity of Surinamese politics, was he honestly in a position to know what the true aim of this NDP exercise was? What makes him think that the MOU will calm tensions in Suriname, rather than exacerbate them? Did he not consider the possibility, for example, that those forces seemingly bent on persuading the Surinamese public that Guyana wants confrontation, might not perceive his actions in a benign light, and might use the MOU to stir up further animosity against this country?
And in the third place there is the matter of Mr Desi Bouterse himself. A former coup leader and a controversial figure within Suriname, he was convicted in the Netherlands in absentia for drug-trafficking in 1999, and an international arrest warrant was issued for him. In addition, there is the matter of his human rights record, and the questions which swirl around the events of 1982 when 15 prominent citizens were executed at Fort Zeelandia. He has always denied any involvement in this killing, claiming that it was carried out on the orders of a military officer who has since died. However, a case was brought against him in the Netherlands by the family members of those who were murdered at the end of last year. Of all the opposition elements in Suriname which Mr Corbin could have allied himself with, therefore, the NDP is far and away the most problematical. Frontier issues aside, such an association cannot carry any political advantages for Guyana's Leader of the Opposition, and could carry some disadvantages. Mr Bouterse might need Mr Corbin at this point for some reason, but Mr Corbin - not to mention the PNCR - surely does not need Mr Bouterse.
While it is true that this government has shown no great inclination to work with the opposition to craft a truly national border policy - although this year they have had the excuse that the PNCR is not in Parliament - that still does not justify any independent initiatives on the part of the opposition in relation to boundary matters. Where that is concerned, there must be a single voice speaking for the country. As stated above, an opposition is entitled to publicly criticize that voice, but not to start speaking on its own account to those with whom we are in dispute.