See PNC, Army, and Police Chiefs Collude to Eliminate Roger Khan

 

The political parties of Guyana must know that Guyanese would not welcome the extradition of any Guyanese citizen who provided significant support to the State, since it came under siege by criminals and militants, operating out of Buxton with the unbridled allegiance of a certain opposition party, the leadership of the police and army, and certain prominent Black personalities.

Since the March 2001 General Elections, I have chronicled the violence in Guyana, especially as it relates to racial and political issues. One is aptly aware of the arguments, moral, ethical, and otherwise regarding the crime situation. What is being witnessed today is not a question of crime, but a challenge to the very concept of “government” in Guyana. Given the strenuous efforts being made by the leaders of our security forces and their colleagues-in-arms to destroy a certain individual, it is fitting to restate a few facts.

When Black police men were being gunned down by the Black criminals-militants, when Black women inside Buxton were being gang-raped and impregnated by the so-called Black “freedom fighters,” when Black families inside Buxton that resisted this campaign of violence were treated with fire and gunshot, when the very Sovereignty of the Republic shuddered under this collective violence, certain “businessmen” confronted this unjustified revolt head-on.

During this time, the much celebrated “people’s army” maintained by taxpayers’ money, became static as its leadership was already compromised along Afro-centric lines. While the ruling party (PPP) struggled to arrest the plummeting situation, the primary opposition (PNC) watched safely, refusing to aid the State, partially because primarily Indian people, its traditional non-supporters, were being raped, robbed, executed, and chased from their homes and villages in various exoduses.

Further, it sought to counter-produce progressive developments, by arguing against the deployment of the military against the seditious militants. Only when the violence overlapped in unprecedented manners that threatened the very interests of the PNC, did the party surfaced—in letter columns. There is credible documentation of all of this.

Whatever is the US position in Guyana, Guyanese cannot begrudge them their interests. Yet, Guyanese must guard against division among our peoples to serve US interest. Historically, we still suffer from such an unholy experience. If the US Government is intent on fostering a government “by the people and for the people” (e.g., power-sharing), let it be said that from today, whatever form of government is implemented, must be coupled with an immediate and necessary restructuring of the army. No country can afford an army that exhibits self-destructive tendencies. An army that stands against the people is an army that would murder the people. One hopes that the notable advocates of power-sharing understand this.

Secondly, the advocacy for the extradition of any Guyanese who prevented the fall of the State must be preceded by the deliverance of the “masterminds” (Kwayana) responsible for plotting sedition against the people and exercising rebellion against the Republic. While one is reminded that the current regime, however corrupt or inept is still a legally elected government, all must remember that Guyana is not the property of any party or people, but of all parties and all peoples. Any show of arms against an elected government, therefore, is an unlawful exhibition against Guyana and all of its peoples.

To those who ask that we uphold the law of the Federal Republic of the United States, we request that they in same fashion uphold the law of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. While Guyanese understand the concerns of the Americans over the security of America, the Americans must likewise understand the concerns of the Guyanese over the security of Guyana.

As such, the “masterminds” ought to be prosecuted for the endless list of murders, kidnappings, rapes, and other human-rights violation committed under their leadership. By “masterminds,” one must include those in the army and police who, as entrusted workers of the State, have willfully used State-sanctioned recourses to facilitate a breakdown of the State. Of course, Guyana being what it is, this seems almost like words thrown into empty space.

Having heard from the PNC MP Debra Backer that the PNC only has interest in a government made legal by the ballot box, one is elated at such libertine rhetoric. But libertine rhetoric is often a disguise for doublespeak rabble in Guyana. Therefore, the PNC should explain its position as espoused during the height of the 2002 militant-criminals’ campaign of violence; which is that the PNC intends to “oppose, expose, and depose” the PPP regime. One recognizes that in a violent climate, the word “depose” (instead of “replace”) sends volatile signals to the public which includes gunmen and “masterminds.” Thus far, there has been no reversal of this position.

In light of recent supposed revelations, it seems like a repeat of the sixties. This very slogan of 2002 was associated with the UF-PNC-CIA disturbances (1961) against the Jagan regime of 1961-1964. It was a favorite of Mr. Peter D’ Aguiar, one of two key players, the other being the leader of the PNC, Forbes Burnham, who was recipient of money from the CIA and who colluded with US interests to ouster the PPP regime.

Before I conclude, the PNC should tell the nation what is its position on Article 98 (2), under the Rome Treaty, which offers US nationals (including servicemen) accused of crimes, immunity from being handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), or tried in Guyanese courts. For its being bullied into signing the treaty in 2003, Guyana received some 27 refurbished army trucks, and a few buildings built by US soldiers. The PNC should explain to the public what would be its recourse should, say, a young Black woman, a PNC supporter, be raped by an American serviceman?