Latest update May 21st, 2024 12:59 AM
Nov 18, 2023 Letters
Dear Editor,
Kindly permit me the space to respond to a dangerous, yet not surprising letter which appeared under the handle of one Robin Singh in the letter section of Stabroek News 11/17, “Our government should undertake research to legally discredit the Geneva Agreement.” Singh is noted on social media for providing entertainment, however, his intervention was about sowing disunity as he traffics in manufacturing a popular ‘GT “strawman.
Firstly, Singh restates certain well documented US declassified cables where discussions and details list various forms of financial and material support given to the Forbes Burnham led PNC opposition party and government in the 1960s in efforts to build the PNC party in Guyana. According to Singh, those payments to the PNC made Forbes Burnham an agent of the USA rather than a nationalist leader shepherding Guyanese towards and an independent, and self-determined path to development. It is this unique logic Singh applies and seek for us to now discredit and abandon the powerful shield that is the well-documented ‘Geneva Accord.’ Editor, with that reasoning, Singh is now engaged in a misadventure that certainly makes Maduro and Venezuela proud. Apart from its dubious claims that the 1899 Tribunal Award was null and void, its December 3rdreferendum and its attendant consequences, ‘Miraflores ‘now has Robin Singh as its battalion providing dangerous air cover as Caracas beats the drums of war at home in pursuit of its claim to the Essequibo. If one were to take Singh seriously, and, for a moment entertain his illogic, one is confronted with myriad of documents, evidence and meetings during 1965 to present which will lay bare his deliberate mischief at a time when every Guyanese at home and abroad are resolute the Essequibo is ours, and the 1899 award was just and final.
Editor, in his excursion to invalidate Burnham and the ‘Geneva Accord,’ Singh must explain to the public why Burnham and Guyana’s position was there was no validity to Venezuela 1962 claim. Singh and his handlers must explain why during the ‘Mixed Commission’ process Guyana and Burnham rejected Venezuela’s proposal for the joint development of Essequibo, an amended proposal by Venezuela for a claim to half of Essequibo which were all rejected by Forbes Burnham and the government of Guyana. Were those policies and inflexible positions the designs of a leader under the pay of foreign masters and handlers? Singh’s illogic is further exposed when one examines the position of the government of Guyana and Forbes Burnham at the bilateral and multilateral process.
Finally, and, the most dangerous element in Singh’s letter is that of his request that the government of Guyana invalidate the ‘Geneva Accord.’ Does it dawn on Singh and his assorted ilk that to invalidate ‘Geneva,’ Guyana will in essence invalidate the current ICJ process. Where would such a position leave Guyana? In the suggested bilateral process which bore no fruitful outcome from 1966 to present? Singh wants us to abandon a process which shielded us from Venezuela’s aggression and claims. Singh and his handlers suggest we talk to Venezuela, and, in the process abandon our rights and obligations as per international Law. If talking is reflective in the language and tenor of the December 3rd referendum, then, in my humble view, the ‘ Geneva Accord’ has to be reaffirmed.
Yours truly,
Leroy Nelson
Listen what Ring Fencing means to your foot table!
May 21, 2024
Williams, Hetsberger & Wilson are Best Lifters as 9 Records tumble Kaieteur Sports – While the rains carried out the works of mother nature, lifters competing at the 2024 edition of the...Kaieteur News – It is an undeniable fact that women are the main victims of sexual violence, including rape. And it... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – After 13 years, the 14 independent member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]