By Abena Rockcliffe
I have already seen the fate of Aubrey Norton. Therefore, I fully understand how easily one can be labelled unpatriotic. I understand too, that in the haste to categorize one as unpatriotic, it is of little weight if one states categorically that one is indeed for country.
But for the record, I still wish to state that there are some parts of my identity that are unwavering, one being that I am Guyanese. I am from Guyana; I am for Guyana. I was born in Guyana, and, barring any unforeseen circumstances, I will die in Guyana.
I, Abena Rockcliffe, am a proud patriot. My patriotism is unwavering, but so is my advocacy for justice. Therefore, I will not blindly support whatever is in the name of patriotism. For example, despite the ongoing controversy with Venezuela, I will not support the ill-treatment of Venezuelans dwelling here, even if it is done in the name of patriotism.
Norton has the same right. He is not compelled to support any document or proposed legislation that he disagrees with simply because it is dubbed the patriotic thing to do. Norton does not sit in the National Assembly on his own accord; he has a duty to the people and to his nation. It would not be fair to his constituency for Norton to roll over and allow the Government to tie him to a document as paramount as the one debated last Friday without his input.
For years, Guyanese, PNCR and PPP/C supporters alike have been bashing the opposition for its poor performance. The joint parliamentary opposition has been labelled “useless”. Now that Norton finally stands up for something, he is labelled an enemy of the state.
When Norton took the floor of the National Assembly last Friday to speak to the Motion Of Support For The Government And The People Of Guyana Reaffirming The Sovereignty Of Guyana Over Its Internationally Recognized Territory, his stance was clear. He stated, from the outset, and several times thereafter, that the Essequibo is not up for grabs. It belongs to Guyana and Venezuela has no legal claim. He stressed that the opposition’s support for Guyana’s sovereignty is unequivocal.
Norton’s stance is not against his nation. It is against what he sees as a government that does not understand the concept of nationalism and inclusion, even when it is crucial for the nation to stand in unity against a common adversary. His stance calls for the government to treat those on his side of the House justly.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hugh Todd, said that Norton’s decision not to support the motion, as it stood, will earn him a position as Nicolas Maduro’s best friend. But Norton said clearly, “Venezuela is an adversary whom we must confront together.”
Norton said that the Arbitral Award of 1899 settled our border issue and declared that Maduro’s planned elections in Essequibo must be condemned.
Norton pledged continued support for Guyana’s soldiers who continue to be away from their families in pursuit of their noble duty. He expressed disappointment with rumors that those soldiers haven’t been treated fairly.
He reiterated the call for a clear foreign policy approach for mobilization of international support on this issue.
Norton recalled the opposition supporting a similar motion before. He bemoaned the fact that many of the promises that were made in consultation for that motion were not followed up on. He recalled his words back then, “We have a caveat: we urge the government to put education on this matter on a permanent basis. But this was ignored.”
He said there remains a need for a proper education programme to benefit Guyanese and other citizens of the world. He said that there should be consultation with African states and the African union to mobilize support. “We cannot ignore the significance of support for 54 African countries.”
Norton noted that there is no functioning parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. He said this state of affairs “manifests no interest in working with the opposition and “now we are compelled to reciprocate.”
He noted that the opposition had asked that special attention be given to border communities. “The government has failed in every promise it made in the previous motion,” Norton claimed. He stressed that the motion should have stated that the government would take action to ensure patriotism was instilled in Guyanese, noting that “patriotism is in crisis.”
Norton noted that the motion fails to outline Guyana’s approach to keeping Venezuela at bay outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Responding to a heckle that suggested that he wants the government to show its hand to the enemy, Norton noted that details are not required, but broad measures should be stated. For example, he said there is no harm in outlining a commitment to a robust public relations campaign, putting resources into border communities to make them more resilient, etc.
Supporting the need for additional measures, Norton made the valid point that while the approach to the ICJ is prudent and enjoys the full support of the opposition, it is known that Venezuela is a rebellious nation. It does not honour agreements or the law.
He lamented the government’s information deficit, noting that the country still cannot accurately count the number of Venezuelans living there. Norton accused the government of being reactive rather than taking the necessary proactive stance. He said that the government is only on alert when Venezuela acts.
Norton told the House that his rejection of a unilateral motion was not new, as the opposition Chief Whip refused to sign it. He recommended that the government withdraw that motion and “let us work together on a joint motion” adding that he “cannot support a motion that is weak and basically resolves to circulate documents.”
Further, Norton stated, “We say without fear of contradiction, we support Guyana in its quest to ensure that the arbitral award is respected. We condemn Venezuela for what they are doing, but we also must condemn the Government of Guyana for what they are doing to us.”
How can we still label his stance unpatriotic?
I believe a motion for unity without a united approach is ill-conceived. Nothing stopped the government from calling for a recess, to acquiesce to at least 50 percent of Norton’s demands simply because he represents a hefty percentage of the nation. I see it as a failed opportunity.
Notwithstanding my general support for Norton’s speech, I must register my only major quarrel with his presentation. He said, “The greatest enemy this country has is the government of Guyana.” That is wrong. Maduro or any leader of any other nation who seeks to jeopardize Guyana’s sovereignty are the enemies. But I note that comment was off script, a retort and should not even be registered in the Hansard.
