Foreign Secretary within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Carl Greenidge, in a recent telephone interview with APNU/AFC officials, advised that many of the arguments by the government and its supporters with regards to Guyana’s sovereignty are inappropriate.
Mr. Greenidge made reference to the South African Government in a country where there was apartheid. He reminded that when there were human rights abuses, the South African government could not have said “we are sovereign nation,” but had to respect the orders of international courts and the principles of human rights treaties and agreements.
Mr. Greenidge pointed out that human rights principles come before the rule of law and the fact that Guyana is a sovereign state does not make the government in power exempt from Regional or International Court actions.
Further, he advised the APNU/AFC supporters that if they had acted properly, they would have nothing to worry about and that there is no need to censor or “shout down” other people for giving a view.
TRANSCRIPT
We have had, in the United Nations, the adoption of principles governing human rights, then the rule of law. What that means is that, within borders, actions of governments can be the subject of international or regional court action. Sovereignty has nothing to with a court not being able to pronounce on something taking place within borders. If you are the signatory to a treaty such as the Treaty of Chaguaramas, or a treaty of human rights which we have in this region – Latin America, or civil rights legislation or civil society agreement, then you are subject to those principles which you signed up to and you cannot…and this is not going to make many Guyanese happy…at least those who are fond of writing in the papers on such matters. You do not have the right to censor the people for pronouncing or giving a view on such matters.
I will close by reminding you that Guyana was one of the countries most vociferous in the battle, and people now forget, against apartheid. Public statements pronouncing on court actions or the lack of action by the courts and by the government of South Africa – which was a racist government – that government could not say well, “because we are the government you can’t say anything about this,” because it touched on fundamental rights and principles. This came up at the UN and the Caribbean raised this matter in the joint Parliament of the ACP-EU and eventually the European Union agreed (an annex which pertained more recently of course). The Commonwealth has rules about how government behaves and how they treat other elements.
If you would have acted properly, you won’t have to, at the same time, prove that you acted properly by censoring other people and shouting them down for voicing a view. If you acted properly, that will have to be taken into account by the court. So I’m telling you, I see a lot of the arguments in Guyana, even by very senior officials in the country, about sovereignty which are, let us say, inappropriate.
