Dear Editor,
The UK Prime Minister David Cameron described corruption as “a greater threat to society than Islamic terrorism”. There is corruption in his country. It is one thing to speak on the effects of corruption. But it is quite another matter when it comes to take action against corruption. The UK Government has consistently refused to take action to tackle corruption in Third World countries. In fact, the UK government, as is also the US Government, has consistently protected its corrupt allies as has been the case in Guyana.
Cameron claims Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Iraq are among the most corrupt states in the world. All three also happens to be Islamic states that are plagued with corruption and terror among other Islamic and non-Islamic nations; India is also facing serious corruption but Cameron did not mention it by name for fear of the consequences in trade.
Modi’s two-year-old government is not corrupt.
Corruption is eating away at the fabric of nations and must be addressed. Guyana is facing serious corruption. Towards this point, the UK PM must be applauded for focusing on corruption. But there is an element of hypocrisy in the PM’s sincerity in addressing corruption; Cameron slams some unfriendly countries but excused others. It has not slammed corruption in Guyana where the UK installed a racist regime in 1964.
Also, Cameron failed to point out Britain’s role in promoting and/or condoning corruption in so many countries including our very own Guyana. The leaders of the countries Cameron mentioned as being among the most corrupt admit their countries have corruption.
But they are urging Cameron to help them prosecute those linked to corruption and for Cameron to return stolen money that is deposited in British banks for safe-keeping. Cameron has not addressed that request or the issue of Britain’s role in facilitating theft of national funds which money has been deposited in UK banks. Britain has not been cooperative in going after the corrupt or confiscating corrupt money.
It is no secret that Britain and the US installed the corrupt regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan against the wishes of the international community. They did the same in Guyana.
The US and UK are, therefore, responsible for corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. They kept financing corrupt leaders knowing fully well that billions of American dollars were being siphoned off and deposited in overseas accounts of the corrupt regimes.
The corrupt leaders of Nigeria have deposited much of their stolen loot in UK banks. When requested to seize the stolen loot, Britain is silent because returning stolen money to their rightful owners could lead to collapse of British banks. The same is also true of corruption involving Guyanese leaders who were protected by Britain.
Corruption is not only when leaders or officials or businesses steal money or pay bribes for contracts. There is also electoral corruption as took place in Guyana in addition to financial corruption.
Britain and the US were involved in electoral fraud in many countries to keep out or prevent unfriendly democratic leaders from office. Even if the socialist leaders were very honest and never stole, the US and Britain preferred a corrupt friendly regime than a non-corrupt socialist regime.
The US toppled the socialist Jagan. So Britain turns a blind eye to electoral fraud as happened in Guyana. To keep out Jagan. It also turned a blind eye on financial corruption as long as socialist leaders are or were prevented from assuming office in Guyana.
It is public information that the US and Britain encouraged electoral abuse in Guyana and even racial violence to remove a democratically elected Jagan government. It is also on record that the US and Britain facilitated and condoned electoral fraud in Guyana between 1964 and 1992. Both major world powers also turned a blind eye to corruption to keep out the socialist PPP from office.
If the British government were so keen in fighting corruption, it would not have funded or supported fraudulent elections in Guyana, and it would have exposed fraud in Guyana or in other countries. The US and Britain also were silent and took no action against Burnham who looted the treasury and was described as the richest Black man in the world at one time.
Cameron cannot be held responsible for the corruption that took place in so many countries. But at a minimum, he should have expressed regrets for what happened under his predecessors and promise that under his administration corruption will be exposed. To reduce or prevent corruption in other countries during the reign of his predecessors, funds could have been filtered directly to NGOs and community groups or honest local governments for projects.
The UK could have supported democratic organisations in Guyana instead of the corrupt PNC.
It is not too late for the UK government to give funds directly to local bodies and NGOs rather than to corrupt leaders at the centre. This is one way to reduce and ultimately eliminate corruption. Britain can also extradite corrupt officials (and charge them) who stole British grants or funds given to the regimes.
The UK government needs to do a lot more than merely speak about corruption. It must identify the corrupt and bring charges against those who hide their money in the UK and/or confiscate their stolen loot and return same to the home countries. And it is not too late to go after those in Guyana who looted the treasury since 1965 or who enriched themselves acquiring state lands during the PNC dictatorship.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
