Something the US Drug report left out
The Freddie Kissoon column
Kaieteur News
March 6, 2006
Last week a concatenation of events produced confessions and admissions by the leadership of the Government of Guyana that even days after the nation must be still holding its breath. But a stark question faces every citizen after each would have digested the revelations; does the Guyana Government have functional integrity?
It began with the just released US report on narcotic trafficking in Guyana . How unfortunate that almost 70 percent of our population would not have been around if that research would have been published during the reign of Forbes Burnham. The Mirror newspaper would have screamed down so loudly that it would have reverberated throughout the region. The cry? The PNC Government is encouraging drug trafficking in Guyana . But look how history has evolved today.
That US report is a scathing indictment of the Guyana Government to the extent that in many other countries resignation demands would have come from the business community, the opposition, civil society and the press.
To underscore the nature of the accusations leveled against the government, let's quote from the Saturday editorial of the Kaieteur News. “ It is especially noteworthy that the report used the term ‘known drug traffickers' to describe businesspersons involved in major commercial operations. The use of the term begs the question; if the authorities know who these drug operators are and what their businesses are based on, how come they continue to operate with impunity?”
If that editorial perception was not sufficient to cause deep reflection among citizens, then came some controversial advice to the nation by Minister Gail Teixeira. Reacting to the acerbic points in the US narcotics critique, she suggested that Guyanese boycott the businesses of those drug barons. This is a dangerously misleading statement apart from its comical nature.
First, she has caused speculation among the Guyanese people in which legitimate investors will be looked upon with suspicion.
There are rich people in this country whose business wealth has come from hard work, and leadership innovations. One hopes after Minister Teixeira's faux pas, these people are not going to be stained. The obvious facetious aspect of the Minister's outburst is that she should name the places from which we should withdraw our patronage.
It is shapeless politics for a Government Minister in any country to call upon citizens not to do business with the companies of drug traffickers without a hint as to what type of commerce these drug lords are into. No sooner had the utterance hit the press than a Regent Street store-owner called me to tell me that he knows that top Government leaders hobnob with known underworld figures in the drug world. May be true. Could be false too.
More governmental reaction poured in. Speaking to a gathering of Christian preachers at State House, President Jagdeo made an even bigger blunder than his Home Affairs Minister, Gail Teixeira. He admitted that appeals to the US Government on two occasions for help in serious crime-fighting situations were met with a resoundingly negative response.
His confession will no doubt find a place on the campaign trail as soon as the election date is called. Why should Guyanese accept a government that cannot acquire vital assistance from traditionally friendly countries in combating the worst scourge in the Guyanese society – crime?
Is the fault the US or Guyana 's? Which way you answer that question it must be acknowledged that our CARICOM partners do not have a problem accessing crime-fighting personnel and resources from the UK and the US . Jamaica has Scotland Yard investigators working alongside the police in that island. Trinidad regularly makes use of both Scotland Yard and FBI help. Why is Guyana being treated as a pariah? Could the answer be in the tiff that is going between the US and Guyana over the status of the planned office of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Guyana which the US drug report failed to incorporate in its findings.
The Government of Guyana (GOG) agreed to the establishment of a DEA office here. But matters deteriorated. GOG informed the DEA that it cannot bestow police powers on the DEA officials in Guyana and that the office should be located in the US Embassy. Even if we accept that police powers cannot be assigned to DEA officers while they are stationed on Guyana soil, it is an inelegant answer to which a charge of insult can be added to suggest putting the DEA unit in the US Embassy.
The US Embassy is a security zone which carries detailed requirements for people entering and leaving. It is counter-productive to put an anti-drug unit there in which members of the public have to interface with DEA officers on a daily basis. GOG should understand this. It has experience with a similar circumstance.
When the Amerindian Affairs Ministry was put in the Presidential compound, no one bothered to go there because the Office of the President is a security zone. Amerindian people got turned off at the treatment they received because they didn't understand the security procedures.
Another suggestion by the DEA is that it would like to share space in the police stations and with CANU and be part of police operations. It is difficult to see how such a demand could be rejected by GOG but it has. GOG has a different concept as to how the DEA should operate in Guyana . GOG wants some form of cooperation between the law enforcement agencies and the local DEA office but the DEA wants to be active participants in the investigation of drug trafficking on Guyanese soil.
In the meantime, the stand-off isn't helping Guyana , neither the cause of the Guyana Government.