People’s Progressive Party (PPP) General Secretary and Guyana’s Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo at his press conference last Thursday sought to cast aspersion that yours truly is an extremist for holding him to account for his government discussion to grant Venezuela “a channel to the sea” when that country is coveting two-thirds of our land, settled by the 1899 Arbitral Award. Those are not Lincoln Lewis’ idea, discussion and words, they are Jagdeo’s. It was Jagdeo who told this nation on the 23rd October 2015, at a press conference, that was the idea and discussion his government was exploring as a means to settle the controversy with Venezuela.
His view represents the most unpatriotic act ever entertained by a Guyana President or Leader of the Opposition. And his non-attendance to the Extraordinary Parliamentary Sitting on Monday 6th November to address a motion dealing with Venezuelans’ referendum, scheduled for December 3 to covet two-thirds of Guyana, raises further concerns.
Jagdeo had an opportunity to stand in the nation’s highest decision-making body and record for prosperity, the denunciation of his statement and condemn Venezuela’s greed. He owes this nation an explanation for his absence from the House when he was in the country. His non-participation has given rise to legitimate questions, and we must ask them aloud:
- Has he entered into any secret deal with Venezuela?
- Had he promised the Venezuelans something and he cannot go to the National Assembly to condemn Venezuela’s increasing aggression, lest he be condemned by Venezuelans or exposed?
- What secret or secrets is Jagdeo holding from this nation on the Venezuela issue?
Jagdeo is the leader of the PPP and oversees the oil and gas sector. Most of Guyana’s oil and gas are extracted from the areas Venezuela covets. This a grave matter that cannot be swept under the carpet or explained away by allies like Robin Singh. Countries have gone to war for far less than this, and Guyanese must not accept a non-retraction of Jagdeo’s statement where it can have the most weight, that is, in the National Assembly where it would be recorded in the Hansard for posterity.
What if some time down the road, Venezuela turns up with a document (real or contrived), with Jagdeo’s signature and Guyana’s seal that states such a discussion was had and agreed on. Where else can we as a nation and people refute this other than Jagdeo’s own denunciation in the National Assembly and from the Hansard.
The nation is well aware President Ali has no significant authority in the PPP, and his words hold no more significance than Jagdeo, be it at the party or government level. We have seen even though Ali is the Head of State and Head of Government, the constant effort by Jagdeo in embarrassing him and eroding authority inherent in the presidency. Some have even expressed the view Jagdeo has Ali on a short leash. Even the PPP Members of Parliament in the National Assembly that denounced Venezuela’s action their words cannot be accepted as the Party’s position given Jagdeo stranglehold on the party and these persons fear no less than Ali, including those considered part of the Civic component.
The most extremist view the nation has been exposed to is Jagdeo harbouring an idea and holding discussion with his colleagues -and possibly with others- when he was president to give Venezuela a channel to the sea, as announced by him. The next extremist view, which is external, but just as dangerous, is the Venezuelans up-coming referendum to covet land and sea that do not belong to them.
Let Mr. Jagdeo come to this nation and provide justification for his absence from Parliament on Monday, 6th November.
Let Mr. Jagdeo come to this nation and swear on the book he took the oath of office on that he has not betrayed the nation.
And let Mr. Jagdeo bring a motion to the National Assembly, repudiating what he told this nation on 23rd October 2015, i.e., his government has floated the idea and discussed giving Venezuela access to “a channel to the sea.”
We must not rest until this instigated internal controversy is resolved. We must learn our lesson from Severo Mallet-Prevost’s memorandum/letter that has caused us so much angst and to approach the International Court of Justice today to resolve a controversy that never should have been. To know more of Prevost’s mischief, refer https://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/26/opinion/guyana-and-venezuela.html or
https://moha.gov.gy/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Brochure-Venezuela-Controversy.pdf
