Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News has become the opposition's chief whip.
On January 12, 2004 the Stabroek News in an editorial
entitled, "Boiling Point," called for the
government of Guyana to have the death squad allegations
placed in front of the Disciplined Services Com-mission. The
editorial bubbled over in support of the capacity of a local
democratic institution, such as the Disciplined Services
Com-mission, to resolve the death squad allegations. Five
months after, it has reversed itself and now finds itself as
a torch-bearer in the opposition's camp.
Stabroek News was never a neutral observer when it came
to the death squad allegations. As this year unfolded, the
Stabroek News found itself directing the opposition's
crusade against the government. The Stabroek News offered a
lifeline to the opposition to keep this flagging issue
alive. Its editorials on this issue soon began to mirror -
some may say even direct - the opposition's campaign against
the Minister of Home Affairs, Ronald Gajraj. The Stabroek
News pursued a relentless campaign to malign the government
and fabricate a criminal association between the Minister of
Home Affairs and the so-called phantom squad. Almost on a
daily basis, since George Bacchus's rhapsodic revelations,
the Stabroek News left few stones unturned in its quest to
have the government indicted for state-sponsored terrorism.
Editorial inconsistency, however, cannot be hidden
easily. Stabroek News, for example, began to change its
position on many issues, notably on the Haitian question.
Like a finless fish, the Stabroek News has also drifted with
the tide as regards its editorial position on the death
squad issue. Helpless and unable to steer its own path, it
clung desperately to the deadwood provided by the combined
opposition's stance on the issue. The Stabroek News
editorial of Sunday May 16 therefore came as no surprise. It
read like a précis of the joint statement issued by the
opposition in reaction to the appointment of a presidential
commission of enquiry into the death squad allegations.
Not only is the Stabroek News' editorial position in
absolute and total unison with the opposition, that
newspaper has now lost all confidence in the capacity of
local democratic institutions to conduct the enquiry. In an
editorial of Monday May 17, 2004 entitled, "America and
the images" it holds up the bipartisanship of the US
Congress as a model for our own legislature. Why is the
Stabroek News so infatuated by the bipartisan response of
the US Congress to the Iraq abuse scandal?
The Stabroek News cannot be so easily fooled. It must by
now be aware that neither the American system of checks and
balances or its bi-partisan Congress has ever stopped
state-sponsored torture, both as a foreign policy instrument
and as extensively practiced in penal institutions within
the United States of America. In the words of Alexander
Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, torture is as American as
apple pie. They point to the public rebuke of America by the
United Nations in 2000 for its record in preventing torture
and other degrading forms of punishment.
So why did the Stabroek News laud this system of checks
and balances and bipartisanship? The nexus to the drifting
position of the newspaper's editorials cannot be missed. The
Stabroek News is advancing the cause of bipartisanship to
support its natural ally, the political opposition in
Guyana, which has rejected the Presidential Commission of
Enquiry because it was constituted without their input. What
better way to promote the new opposition demand that it has
to be consulted in the appointment of the members of the
commission than to point to the virtues of bipartisanship
within the US Congress.
Yours faithfully,
Alana Johnson
Editor's note:
Ms Johnson is mistaken when she accuses this newspaper of
inconsistency in its editorial position on the death squad
issue; in fact, quite the contrary is the case. For her
information, we have carried editorials on the subject on
the following dates: January 12, 18, 25; February 2, 15;
March 21, 26; May 9, 16, 17.
Firstly, if she looks back on what we have written in our
leaders, she will discover we have directed no
"relentless campaign" for the opposition or anyone
else against Minister Gajraj. Our position has consistently
from the beginning emphasized the need to investigate the
claims about a death squad, first and foremost, not the
allegations against the Minister of Home Affairs alone,
which we have treated as an aspect of the larger issue. Some
of our editorials dealing with the subject never mentioned
Mr Gajraj at all.
This emphasis is again reflected in our leader of May 16,
which Ms Johnson erroneously deems a "precis" of
the opposition statement whose contents were reported in the
same edition. In contrast to that statement, we took
specific issue with the fact that the terms of reference of
the commission were restricted to the allegations against
Minister Gajraj, rather than encompassing the death squad
claims as a whole, among other things.
There are in addition other differences of substance
between our editorial stance on May 16, and the combined
opposition statement, including the fact that we did not
raise any questions about the suitability or otherwise of
the commissioners, because we considered what was at issue
at this stage, was the fact that whatever their
qualifications, there had been no consultation with the
opposition prior to their appointment.
Secondly, with regard to the accusation that we moved
from a position in our editorial of January 12, of
advocating that the death squad allegations be placed in
front of the Disciplined Services Commission (DFC), to one
where we are touting the virtues of bipartisanship in the
setting up of the commission, we can only say that Ms
Johnson is mistaken on this count too.
The leader of January 12 was our first editorial on the
matter of the death squad, and came shortly after Mr George
Bacchus's startling revelations. It did not say that the DSC
should investigate the allegations about an execution squad;
it suggested - as a possibility only - that it could listen
in camera to what Mr Bacchus had to say, and advise on the
way forward. The preceding section makes it clear that the
purpose would be to assess Mr Bacchus's testimony, and
recommend how the leads he provided could be pursued, given
the fact that the police force might be compromised.
Shortly after this, more evidence started to come into
the open, some of it of a documentary nature which went well
beyond Mr Bacchus and his statements.
We have never taken an editorial position on what form
the inquiry into the death squad allegations should take,
although from January 18 onwards, we said it was a matter
for negotiation (or discussion) with the opposition, either
directly or impliedly. Even in the January 12 editorial, the
DFC was mentioned as enjoying bipartisan support - evidence
of our concern that there should be no unilateral approach
on the matter.
Leaving aside Ms Johnson's eccentric views on the
bi-partisan response of the US Congress to the Iraq abuse
scandal, and the checks and balances of the American system
designed to avoid the abuse of power, we should like to
point out again that the DFC itself was a bipartisan
creation, clearly providing a precedent for this approach.
It is a pity that 'Ms. Johnson' saw fit to include in her
letter a vulgarly abusive last paragraph, which we deleted,
reminiscent of a particular dogmatic kind of political
language.
