Articles by Janet Jagan
by Janet Jagan
I can recall some memorable May Days, the first I participated in was either 1946 or 1947. We formed the Women’s Political Economic Organization (WPEO) in 1946, the same year that the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) the forearm of the Peoples’ Progressive Party which emerged from PAC to PPP in 1950.
Along with a few prominent women, Mrs Winifred Gaskin and Ms Frances Van Stafford, we organized the first womens’ group to make demands for womens’ rights. It was to last only a couple of years, but, made its mark in the women’s struggles.
One of our first forays into public life was to call for better construction work on the Wortmanville Housing Scheme in Georgetown. These flats which were being built for lower income families were deemed by WPEU to be "unbuilt." It was during this time, too, that the cost of living was rising and was a burden on the lower income groups.
Due to my position in the WPEO and in the PAC I was able to bring about a linkage in the struggle. Mr H.JM Hubbard one of the 4 members of PAC was General Secretary of the TUC and we discussed with him ways and means of encouraging women into the struggles of the working people.
One of his suggestions was to bring the women into the May Day march and rally where their call for lowering the cost of living and other issues could be made.
Most of the WPEO women were middle class and had never marched through the streets of Georgetown or even thought of doing so. But they rallied and came out on that May Day, the first of many when women participated in larger numbers. It was a great success.
Another May Day I recollect, but I’m uncertain of the year, took place during Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow’s life. The Trade Union Movement was practiced by the British when they sought to destroy the PPP after the 1953 elections and the TUC for supporting the PPP. It has never really recovered!
Cheddi and I were in the march which passed through Alberttown. As we marched, we saw Critchlow standing at the gate of his little house and yard. His face was so sad. He had not been invited to participate in that May Day march.
Cheddi went up to him and held out his hand and said "Comrade, join us" and he did! We marched together on that memorable May Day. After he died, the TUC began honouring the fall Father of Trade Unionism!
I remember another May Day, another sad event, when the People’s National Congress (PNC) was in power and the TUC had its loyal partner. Cheddi, as Hon President of GAWU was asked to attend and speak. He did so, but as we all know, he was treated badly. He sat, isolated and alone in a section of the platform where he was placed by the TUC and booed when he spoke. It was done to humiliate him, but Cheddi had a tough skin and behaved humanly and always seeking unity of the working class in his address.
Of course, the great pity is that May Day should be the manifestation of unity and solidarity of the working class. Those who believe this must always strive for that unity.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
by Janet Jagan
Lined against the most powerful military machine in the history of the world and proclaiming peace instead of war are some of the most influential people and important countries.
The man who has pushed the hardest for peace and who has withstood tremendous pressures is French President Jacque Chirac. Along with the Chancellor of Germany, the two have led Europe’s anti-war campaign. Both nations also hold important seats in the United Nations Security Council which is a key element in the struggle to prevent an armed attack on Iraq.
Certainly, Canada’s Jean Chretien deserves praise for his forthright stand against his powerful neighbour, the USA. He strongly criticised the US call for the removal of President Saddam Hussein and asked if the ending of Saddam’s rule was part of the UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which deals with disarmament.
Another neighbour of the USA, Mexico, is taking an anti-war stance. Anyone knowing US methods, must appreciate the courage of these two bordering states to go against the colossus that dominates the Western Hemisphere.
What will Turkey do? The people and their representatives in Parliament are against the presence of US troops on their soil. Yet their leaders, with eyes dazzled by US dollars are willing to take on the troops and make an invasion easier, since Turkey borders Iraq.
As the likelihood of war gets closer, more nations are expressing their abhorrence of war. Russia, China, Japan are three important countries which have taken strong positions against war on Iraq. Russia has expressed the view that the US and UK keep changing the rules and despite what they say, are already attacking Iraq in their flights over the ‘no fly zone’ in Southern Iraq.
It is of interest to note that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair took a beating in the House of Commons recently when 120 Labour MP’s voted against his motion on Iraq. Blair promised not to commit British military to any involvement without first getting consent of the House of Commons. How does Blair account for the fact that British aircraft are bombing Iraq along with US planes in the ‘no fly zone,’ killing civilians and attacking defence targets of Iraq? Irate MP’s have asked this same question.
The USA has considerably influenced the United Nations Weapons Inspectors who now seem to be taking orders from the USA. In the beginning, Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix had said he takes orders from the UN, not the USA. However, now, the pressures on him seem successful and he is in the process of clearing Iraq of any weapons of self-defence, in the wake of the constant promises by the USA that it will attack Iraq, whatever.
The USA has every weapon of mass destruction ever invented and will bomb Iraq and its people to oblivion. We saw the devastation in Afghanistan. What it will do in Iraq will be far greater.
One can only wonder why Iraq has been pinpointed for destruction. Apparently during the Clinton era, it was not considered a threat. Mr. Bush has not succeeded in persuading anyone that Saddam was linked to the September 11, 2001 attack on New York and Washington. No one loves the Iraq regime, yet why should it be the pivot of all the war plans of the USA?
We must be grateful for the presence of peacemakers throughout the world - the Jimmy Carters, the Nelson Mandelas, the Pope, Jacque Chirac and the millions of ordinary people everywhere who have marched in protest of war! Blessed are the peacemakers!
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
by Janet Jagan
The US war on Iraq is now in its second week and is known as the "Coalition," meaning the US and UK military invasion of Iraq.
Although the Iraqi military, at the time of writing, has so far put up resistance unexpected by the Coalition Forces, there can be no doubt about the outcome of this cowardly war. How could any country in the world overcome an invasion from the US super power - equipped with all the latest advances for military supremacy in the air, land and seas? And more so in the case of Iraq, a country denuded of basic military defences.
A British writer, John Le Carre, said this provocative bit: "How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history "(Time Magazine.)"
What he wrote makes sense as people the world over try to figure out why the USA has fought so strenuously to bring about its war on Iraq. It is true that President Bush made dozens of blustering promises, that must now seem embarrassing, about the imminent capture of bin Laden. It is also clear that Mr. Bush and company, try as they did, were unable to connect Saddam Hussein to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The possible reasons why the USA decided to invade Iraq are many, including Mr. Bush's desire to complete the work of his father in the 1991 war. Its also possible that a war is needed to cover-up the sinking economy in the USA, or even to show the world that the US is the super power and can do whatever it wants, including flouting the United Nations and world public opinion. Whatever, it is certain that the USA is not spending $75 billion just to disarm and remove Saddam Hussein. There are plenty of countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa with tyrants as heads of government and with weapons of mass destruction, so maybe the presence of large quantities of oil in Iraq is the reason.
The US military is, at this moment, caught up in its own duplicity. It claims that every move is governed by the need to protect Iraqi civilians from hurt, yet it has declared Basra a "legitimate military target" with 100,000 children at risk and more so, now since the "concerned" military has busted the water system, disease and death are the next chapter in this cowardly war on Iraq.
The US military again got caught in its double standards. It has attacked the Iraqi military for showing US captured soldiers and airmen on television, but it has done the same by showing Iraqi prisoners of war on TV. The US charged the Iraqis with breaking the Geneva Convention, but the Red Cross has criticised both sides for exhibiting prisoners of war on TV. But has the US forgotten already its 600 prisoners from Afghanistan being held now for about one year at the US Guantanamo Bay military base?
These prisoners have been denied any form of legal representation to this day. The Red Cross reported that the Geneva Convention was not being observed in its treatment of prisoners who are given only 15 minutes, twice a week, outside their miserably small cells. Already, some 15 have attempted suicide over the inhuman treatment by the USA. (Since writing, the US has released 19 of these prisoners to Afghanistan. They have loudly denounced the inhuman treatment they received at the hands of their captors.)
Like all wars, it is the innocent who suffer - the aged, the women, and the children. Iraqi hospitals are now swollen with the victims of this unprincipled war while the US military still claim to be "concerned" about the safety of Iraqi civilians!
So far, the cost of the war to the US is $75 billion. That amount, if used for the welfare of the poorest in this world, would mean the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, lost every year due to poverty and diseases.
What a better world this would be if, instead of spending billions to kill, the billions were spent to save lives and renew hope in this troubled planet.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
by Janet Jagan - 2009
A question that dominates discussions and the views and opinions of many Guyanese is that of democracy. If one keeps an eye on the print and TV media, one can see the subject being frequently raised – is Guyana a democracy, or something else, short of being a democracy.
Guyana has gone through three stages: 1) Colonial rule 2) The Burnham/PNC era of rigged elections and denial of human rights and 3) The 1992 restoration of democracy. As a colony of Great Britain, Guyanese lacked the right to govern their own country. Although fair elections were held, the British held on closely to security, foreign affairs, finance and the civil service, and held, as well, tight control of the media. We all know only too well what happened during the PNC regime, when that party held on to power by means of electoral rigging and tight control of people’s rights – like freedom of the press, freedom of movement and freedom of thought.
All of these restrictions on the liberties of people ended when the PPP won the 1992 elections, following activities of those inside and outside of Guyana (Jimmy Carter’s help was a major contribution to the restoration of democracy) for the changing of electoral procedures, mainly the counting of ballots at the place of poll.
There is, however, a slice of Guyanese society, that will not accept that Guyana is a democracy. They complain bitterly that their rights are denied, that one party keeps winning elections, which they believe is unfair. They demand participation in the Executive branch of government and consider the use of the majority vote in the National Assembly an affront to democracy. They interpret the government ownership of the radio station, the one–TV station situation at Linden and the restriction of advertisements to Stabroek News some time ago as assaults on democracy and the right to freedom of speech and thought the slap on the wrist of TV Channel 6 for permitting threats to the President, an attack on human rights.
They also complain bitterly about Parliament – that its practices are unfair and the majority vote rules on every bill and matter before that body. The critics fail to understand that this is the way democracies are run. The minority cannot rule, except in dictatorships. As one historian Frederic Austin Ogg: put it in his book “European Governments and Politics” “… The debate ended, the motion is put. If the opposition prevails, the bill perishes; and while most government bills almost always come through (failure to do so, being a government defeat, would quite possibly upset their minority), the mortality of private members’ bills at this stage is very great.” That is the reality of how parliaments work.
But the critics never mention the tremendous changes that have taken place in our National Assembly. I sat there in the PNC years when questions were never answered and when Opposition Leader Cheddi Jagan was prevented from speaking in parliament for over two years because of the PNC speaker’s ruling. I put some 12 questions on Jonestown to the then National Assembly at each session, but they were never placed on the Order paper. Today, questions are answered and not ‘ducked.’ We now have an advanced committee system known as the Parliamentary Standing Committees that embraces all parliamentarians in the study of bills and reports that go to the National Assembly and is responsible for appointments to commissions and boards. We now have Hansards, important to our history, which the PNC government did not print. All that is left for historical study during that period are speeches typed on thin paper, now deteriorating.
As to freedom of speech and expression, the critics have to dig deep and deeper to justify their charges. In fact, some of the “free speech” is so noxious and unfair, that the government should be challenged for allowing such nonsense to be printed or said.
Guyana can be proud. We are one of the few countries in the world where the Cabinet Secretary reports weekly to the nation on Cabinet decisions and where the Head of State, the President, holds regular press conferences where any and all questions put by journalists are answered. Guyana’s ministers go out to the “roots” on a regular basis to inform, to enquire, to investigate and to rap with citizens. Several ministers hold “open days” where people can seek help and express their grievances.
Further, in the PPP’s efforts to enhance democracy, the PPP/C has endorsed the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has enacted legislation to ensure that the rights of Guyanese are guaranteed by the Constitution. Also five rights commissions have been established to enhance the rights of women, children, indigenous people and ethnic relations.
We are a full fledged democracy and we can hold up our heads in pride that this is a reality.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009