Disappointed by actions of Guyanese ambassadors, diplomats posted abroad

Dear Editor,
Ambassadors of the ABCE countries in Guyana, and other foreign policy diplomats of those countries as well as the Caribbean region, condemned the electoral fraud of the March elections. In conversations with Guyanese in the diaspora and in Guyana, it has been pointed out that Guyanese diplomats in the ABCE and Caricom countries, as well as those posted in India, China and elsewhere, were silent on or about the fraud.
Are they not ashamed, Guyanese have asked? In other countries, it is noted, diplomats would have resigned their position rather than condone or accept fraud.
Supriya Singh, not a diplomat but a supporter of the coalition, was praised by the diaspora for her principled position in condemning the coalition for its attempt to rig the election.
Having been silent during the fraud, after the declaration of the right winner of the election, a diplomat worth his salt would have acted honourably and tendered his resignation. Guyanese diplomats, as critics point out, seem proud of their action in condoning and preparing to accept a fraudulent election. In fact, some who supported the fraud were boldfaced enough to remain in their position.
Rigging and a job means more to them than honour. They have absolutely no integrity, behaving in the same way as their predecessors during the dictatorship, between 1966 and 1992.
Unlike the diplomats and ambassadors of other countries, who behaved honourably, Guyanese are disappointed that their ambassadors and diplomats traded their integrity for retention of their position. It may have been that some Guyanese diplomats feared they would lose their job if they were to speak out against electoral fraud, thus they lost their voice.
The title to a position was to them more important than integrity. Roti defined their behaviour and action. But not so for the diplomats of the white countries and some Caribbean diplomats. Integrity and honesty were more important to them than bread. They stopped electoral fraud in its tracks, and convinced their home countries to intervene in Guyana to force the regime to accept the outcome of the democratic election.
Of course, some of us in the diaspora played a role in convincing the ABCE countries to intervene in Guyana to protect democracy. Had the ABCE diplomats and some Caricom countries not intervened, the election would have been rigged.
In fact, at one point, as Freddie Kissoon penned in a column, four of the seven members of GECOM were prepared to accept the fraudulent count of Mingo and declare the APNU-led coalition as the winner. The diplomats intervened, preventing any declaration of the fraudulent count as the official result. Of course, a few of us appealed to, and lobbied, the governments of the ABCE countries to mount pressure on the regime in Guyana.
It is not too late for Guyanese diplomats to put on the public record their condemnation of, and distancing of themselves from, electoral fraud. They need to embrace a Supriya Singh moment in their lives.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram