Dear Editor,

The Stabroek News has become the opposition's chief whip. On January 12, 2004 the Stabroek News in an editorial entitled, "Boiling Point," called for the government of Guyana to have the death squad allegations placed in front of the Disciplined Services Com-mission. The editorial bubbled over in support of the capacity of a local democratic institution, such as the Disciplined Services Com-mission, to resolve the death squad allegations. Five months after, it has reversed itself and now finds itself as a torch-bearer in the opposition's camp.

Stabroek News was never a neutral observer when it came to the death squad allegations. As this year unfolded, the Stabroek News found itself directing the opposition's crusade against the government. The Stabroek News offered a lifeline to the opposition to keep this flagging issue alive. Its editorials on this issue soon began to mirror - some may say even direct - the opposition's campaign against the Minister of Home Affairs, Ronald Gajraj. The Stabroek News pursued a relentless campaign to malign the government and fabricate a criminal association between the Minister of Home Affairs and the so-called phantom squad. Almost on a daily basis, since George Bacchus's rhapsodic revelations, the Stabroek News left few stones unturned in its quest to have the government indicted for state-sponsored terrorism.

Editorial inconsistency, however, cannot be hidden easily. Stabroek News, for example, began to change its position on many issues, notably on the Haitian question. Like a finless fish, the Stabroek News has also drifted with the tide as regards its editorial position on the death squad issue. Helpless and unable to steer its own path, it clung desperately to the deadwood provided by the combined opposition's stance on the issue. The Stabroek News editorial of Sunday May 16 therefore came as no surprise. It read like a précis of the joint statement issued by the opposition in reaction to the appointment of a presidential commission of enquiry into the death squad allegations.

Not only is the Stabroek News' editorial position in absolute and total unison with the opposition, that newspaper has now lost all confidence in the capacity of local democratic institutions to conduct the enquiry. In an editorial of Monday May 17, 2004 entitled, "America and the images" it holds up the bipartisanship of the US Congress as a model for our own legislature. Why is the Stabroek News so infatuated by the bipartisan response of the US Congress to the Iraq abuse scandal?

The Stabroek News cannot be so easily fooled. It must by now be aware that neither the American system of checks and balances or its bi-partisan Congress has ever stopped state-sponsored torture, both as a foreign policy instrument and as extensively practiced in penal institutions within the United States of America. In the words of Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, torture is as American as apple pie. They point to the public rebuke of America by the United Nations in 2000 for its record in preventing torture and other degrading forms of punishment.

So why did the Stabroek News laud this system of checks and balances and bipartisanship? The nexus to the drifting position of the newspaper's editorials cannot be missed. The Stabroek News is advancing the cause of bipartisanship to support its natural ally, the political opposition in Guyana, which has rejected the Presidential Commission of Enquiry because it was constituted without their input. What better way to promote the new opposition demand that it has to be consulted in the appointment of the members of the commission than to point to the virtues of bipartisanship within the US Congress.

Yours faithfully,

Alana Johnson

Editor's note:

Ms Johnson is mistaken when she accuses this newspaper of inconsistency in its editorial position on the death squad issue; in fact, quite the contrary is the case. For her information, we have carried editorials on the subject on the following dates: January 12, 18, 25; February 2, 15; March 21, 26; May 9, 16, 17.

Firstly, if she looks back on what we have written in our leaders, she will discover we have directed no "relentless campaign" for the opposition or anyone else against Minister Gajraj. Our position has consistently from the beginning emphasized the need to investigate the claims about a death squad, first and foremost, not the allegations against the Minister of Home Affairs alone, which we have treated as an aspect of the larger issue. Some of our editorials dealing with the subject never mentioned Mr Gajraj at all.

This emphasis is again reflected in our leader of May 16, which Ms Johnson erroneously deems a "precis" of the opposition statement whose contents were reported in the same edition. In contrast to that statement, we took specific issue with the fact that the terms of reference of the commission were restricted to the allegations against Minister Gajraj, rather than encompassing the death squad claims as a whole, among other things.

There are in addition other differences of substance between our editorial stance on May 16, and the combined opposition statement, including the fact that we did not raise any questions about the suitability or otherwise of the commissioners, because we considered what was at issue at this stage, was the fact that whatever their qualifications, there had been no consultation with the opposition prior to their appointment.

Secondly, with regard to the accusation that we moved from a position in our editorial of January 12, of advocating that the death squad allegations be placed in front of the Disciplined Services Commission (DFC), to one where we are touting the virtues of bipartisanship in the setting up of the commission, we can only say that Ms Johnson is mistaken on this count too.

The leader of January 12 was our first editorial on the matter of the death squad, and came shortly after Mr George Bacchus's startling revelations. It did not say that the DSC should investigate the allegations about an execution squad; it suggested - as a possibility only - that it could listen in camera to what Mr Bacchus had to say, and advise on the way forward. The preceding section makes it clear that the purpose would be to assess Mr Bacchus's testimony, and recommend how the leads he provided could be pursued, given the fact that the police force might be compromised.

Shortly after this, more evidence started to come into the open, some of it of a documentary nature which went well beyond Mr Bacchus and his statements.

We have never taken an editorial position on what form the inquiry into the death squad allegations should take, although from January 18 onwards, we said it was a matter for negotiation (or discussion) with the opposition, either directly or impliedly. Even in the January 12 editorial, the DFC was mentioned as enjoying bipartisan support - evidence of our concern that there should be no unilateral approach on the matter.

Leaving aside Ms Johnson's eccentric views on the bi-partisan response of the US Congress to the Iraq abuse scandal, and the checks and balances of the American system designed to avoid the abuse of power, we should like to point out again that the DFC itself was a bipartisan creation, clearly providing a precedent for this approach.

It is a pity that 'Ms. Johnson' saw fit to include in her letter a vulgarly abusive last paragraph, which we deleted, reminiscent of a particular dogmatic kind of political language.