Non-ABC diplomats believes election was rigged

Dear Editor,

This is in regards to Ralph Ramkarran’s column on “How the PPP lost the West … “ascribing it to, “leadership arrogance”. Several diplomats who I spoke with recently were puzzled with the behaviour of elements in the PPP leadership with regards to its attitude towards the diplomats of the ABC (America, Britain, Canada) countries before the election campaign. The diplomats of the non-ABC countries believe the animosity between the PPP and the ABC countries contributed significantly to the party’s defeat as Ramkarran hinted in his column.

But the non-ABC diplomats were also of the view that the May 11 General Election was rigged to remove the incumbent PPP/C from office (because of its attitude towards the ABCs). The non-ABC diplomats feel the Ambassadors of the US, UK and Canada, perhaps with the blessings of the Government of their home countries condoned, if not also facilitated, the rigging. They claim that the US Charge (acting Ambassador), wanted the PPP out of office; undemocratic means were used to achieve the goal perhaps at the instruction and connivance of his Government.

The non-ABC diplomats feel the American Charge convinced and led the representatives of the other two developed countries (Britain and Canada) to topple the PPP/c from office through “rigging” that they are convinced took place through sophisticated means. The Ambassadors of the BC countries simply went along with the US goal of removing the PPP/C from office. The non-ABC diplomats say the head of the Embassies of the three ABC countries colluded and worked in cahoots to find (creative) ways to produce the desired result (an opposition victory). They claim bribery and coercion were used at the right steps in the electoral process to produce the desired result. They feel without the rigging, the PPP/c would have won a majority of seats.

Asked why they or their Embassies (Representatives) or the governments of their countries did not condemn the foreign or American or ABC involvement in influencing the electoral process or the rigged outcome of the elections, the non-ABC diplomats said their countries strictly adhere to a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country. They did not want to violate internationally accepted diplomatic norms, customs and practices by getting involved in or making comments about Guyana’s elections which is an internal matter of a sovereign nation.

They note that a country’s election is a delicate and sovereign matter and another country should not interfere in or manipulate the electoral process to produce a desired result. They say it is a violation of the Vienna Convention. They claim elections in Guyana since the restoration of democracy in 1992 has not been rigged. Thus, there is no need for foreign intervention (as say in 1992 prior to which elections were rigged by the PNC) although they support foreign observer missions to oversee a fair process. They believe that Guyana would be the only country where foreign governments facilitated the rigging of an election to remove the incumbent from office.

Asked why they felt the election was rigged or what evidence exists to substantiate their claims of rigging, they pointed to fake Statements of Polls (SOPs) and the refusal of Gecom to recount the ballots, arguing that these were enough evidence to support the theory of rigging. They also point to the US Charge’s unwillingness, backed by the reps of UK and Canada, to support a PPP/C request for a recount of ballots even after fake SOPs were uncovered. They said if the ABC countries and Gecom officials had nothing to hide “why they oppose a recount of ballots”. They also point to a statement made by Gecom Chair, Dr Steve Surujbally, that a recount would be undertaken in one region and quickly reversed course changing his mind after the Ambassadors of the ABC countries opposed the recount. They say the ABC Ambassadors were dictating the course of action of Gecom officials.

They also point to former President Jimmy Carter’s sudden departure of Guyana on the eve of the election. The diplomats believe that Carter got “wind of the plan to rig the election”, or perhaps was informed about it by Embassy officials, and he decided he did not want to be a part of the “monkey business” (as the diplomats describe the rigging) to condone it. The diplomats said Carter felt it necessary to fly off so he could not be accused of giving his blessing to a rigged election. It was noted that while Carter complained of being unwell and flew off in a private jet, he went straight to work when he landed in Atlanta.

The diplomats are of the view that a foreign government and or its Embassy that represents it in another country does not endorse candidates or parties in foreign elections and as such should not have influenced the outcome of the election in Guyana as it did last May. The Embassies of the ABC countries should have encouraged and facilitated a free and fair election, not its outcome.

The non-ABC diplomats feel what took place in Guyana’s election by the ABC diplomats was clear interference in the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation. That was “unacceptable”, say the non-ABC diplomats. They were stunned by the behaviour of the US Charge Bryan Hunt in particular, noting it was a deliberate intervention in the conduct of the election of another sovereign nation especially when he instructed Gecom Chair to declare the results even when ballots were not certified and the outcome not clear. One non-ABC diplomat in particular said: “It was astounding and disgraceful that Gecom officials allowed this to happen undermining the body’s independence. They (some Gecom officials) seem to lack self-respect. Their behaviour was reprehensible. They should resign to save face”.

The non-ABC diplomats feel, at a minimum, Gecom should have ordered a recount and it should have been supported by the ABC countries.

Many Guyanese I spoke with believe that had the Embassies or governments of the influential BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and Venezuela had countered the ABC intervention in the conduct of the election and demanded a free and fair election, rigging would have been avoided. They also believe that had the non-ABC countries jointly issued a statement calling for a recount of ballots, it would have been done. Because they chose to be silent and to pursue a course of non-interference in accordance with diplomatic norms, the Embassies of the ABC countries dictated the outcome of the election in Guyana.

The PPP should take heed of Ramkarran’s analysis and mend relations with the Western powers.

Yours truly,

Vishnu Bisram