VIEWPOINT Guyanese are living under the threat of violent, organised crime Viewpoint by Kit Nascimento First broadcast on GTV, Channel 11 Tuesday, May 20 2003
Twenty-one
Policemen,
a Prison Officer and now, a soldier, have been murdered: many Policemen
deliberately targeted
while unarmed and off-
duty, killed in cold blood. An
ever-increasing number of innocent,
decent
people going about their everyday business have lost
their lives, innocent
victims of armed violence. None of us is secure from
being kidnapped. Many, in desperate fear of being killed
or kidnapped,
have shutdown their businesses, closed their homes and fled the country,
their life’s work destroyed, forced to begin again, aliens in a
strange country, often there illegally. We
now live in a country overwhelmed, if not overtaken, by brutal, bestial,
ruthless, cold-blooded gangs of organised and sponsored killers. We have
seemed helpless to confront them, or is that now about to change? These
are no ordinary criminals.
They are directed, financed and protected by identifiable and
important people in our society, masters of the illicit narcotics
trade, visibly rich without any apparent means at their disposal to make
them so. There
are others of these organised criminals who serve political masters
dedicated to destabilising the country and embarrassing the government,
while, in fact, they prey on the rich and poor alike and kill Guyanese
of every ethnic
origin with equal ferocity. Members
of the Police Force untrained, underpaid and ill-equipped have found
themselves the target of this onslaught against society and have too
often responded wrongly, but not surprisingly, by shooting first and
asking afterwards. The
political opposition, not unhappy to see the Government in trouble,
instead of focusing their anger on the criminals, are all too quick to
condemn the Police and make excuses for the criminals. Powerful
influential voices are raised against the police rather than the
criminals in the name of human rights and justice. Prominent among them,
however, are leading lawyers with questionable motives who make their
fortunes defending the few criminals whom the Police manage to put
before the Courts. All
of us, regardless of our politics or our ethnicity, are threatened. Yet,
we seem to have lost our sense of perspective, our sense of direction,
even our sense of preservation. It
is the criminals and those who sponsor and offer them protection and who
have visited this madness on our nation, who should be the focus of our
outrage? The
buck, as the late American President Harry Truman once said, stops with
the President and who knows that better than the political opposition.
The President, however, is not all-powerful. He must depend on the
Police and, if and when necessary, the Defence Force, to do the job of
cleaning out the criminals and restoring law and order. The
President had promised, and
is giving, the Police and army the tools to do the job. This, however,
takes time. More important than the tools is the commitment, attitude
and professionalism of the Police and army in performing their duty. The
President, quite correctly, made it public that he was not satisfied
with the performance of the security forces. He was specific. He has, he
said, told them to “clean out the situation in Buxton”. Chief-of-Staff
of the Defence Force, Brigadier General,
Michael Atherly, has, in my view, however indirectly,
improperly responded to the President. On May 12, addressing newly
recruited Officer Cadets, the Chief of Staff expressed his “serious
concern” about what he described as “the temptation of the Army to
become too politicised an institution at the centre of domestic
strife”. He questioned “the notion of the GDF as the guardian of
internal order and social stability”. But,
when the stability of a nation is threatened, whether the threat is
internal or external, that is precisely the task of the military when
called upon by the government. The
US government, through its Ambassador, has declared “Guyanese
authorities lack the capability and resources to effectively deter or
investigate these crimes” and described Buxton “as a base for
criminal activity”. The
PNC
have embraced Buxton as their own special village. On Nation Watch last
week Lance Carbury, with Hamley Case, Vincent Alexander, Clarissa Riehl
and Charles Corbin, in close support, declared Buxton to be “part of
the country, part of this society”. Yes, but when the Police and army
carried out a search at a chicken farm sponsored by the PNC,
they called it “deliberate mischief”. Buxton, according to the PNC,
is off limits to our security forces. Buxton
is much more than a haven for organised crime; it is the centre and
headquarters of it. On any given day, gunmen with AK47s on public
display patrol the streets of central Buxton. Narcotics are sold and
consumed openly on the streets. The Police and army, unless in
significant numbers and displaying maximum force capability, cannot
enter Buxton and when they do they come under criticism from the PNC
Executives. The events of the past few days triggered by the kidnapping
of Mr.
Viticharan Singh, may have changed their minds. Has
it occurred to the PNC that the public ambivalence they displayed
towards dealing with the criminals who are in command in Buxton, makes
their condemnation of the criminal assault on our country less than
believable? Welcome
though it is, one determined, successful joint operation of the security
forces against the bandits embedded in Buxton will not, of course, cure
the problem. The
attack on the country by organised crime is a national problem. It
transcends partisan politics. While it is the government’s first
responsibility to protect the security of the State and maintain law and
order and to use all the forces at its disposal to do so, every
law-abiding citizen is the target and the potential victim of the
criminals. The war on crime demands a collective political response. We
are now on official public international notice that Guyana is not a
safe place to be in, not a safe place to invest in, to do business in or
to live in, the consequence of which we hardly need spell out. I
would like to see our President and Robert Corbin joined by every other
parliamentary leader together on television declaring a “war on
organised crime”. I would like to see a “Bipartisan Council on Crime” chaired by the President and with every parliamentary leader a member and, including the Social Partners, meeting regularly with a full and unqualified mandate of the Cabinet to direct the war on crime.
|