Sesión extraordinaria

CONSEJO PERMANENTE DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS AMERICANOS

ACTA DE LA SESIÓN EXTRAORDINARIA CELEBRADA EL

21 DE JULIO DE 2020

Nómina de los miembros que asistieron a la sesión

En la ciudad de Washington, D. C., a las dos y treintaidós minutos de la tarde del martes 21 de julio de 2020, celebró sesión extraordinaria el Consejo Permanente de la Organización de los Estados Americanos para tratar la situación del proceso electoral en Guyana. Presidió la sesión el Embajador Luis Fernando Cordero Montoya, Representante Permanente de Honduras y Presidente del Consejo Permanente. Asistieron los siguientes miembros:

Embajador Noel Anderson Lynch, Representante Permanente de Barbados y Vicepresidente del Consejo Permanente

Embajador Everson Hull, Representante Permanente de San Kitts y Nevis

Embajador Anthony Phillips-Spencer, Representante Permanente de Trinidad y Tobago

Embajadora Lou-Anne Gilchrist, Representante Permanente de San Vicente y las Granadinas

Embajador Anton E. Edmunds, Representante Permanente de Santa Lucía

Embajadora Niermala Badrising, Representante Permanente de Suriname

Embajador Sidney Stanley Collie, Representante Permanente del Commonwealth de las Bahamas

Embajador Hernán Salinas Burgos, Representante Permanente de Chile

Embajador Fernando Simas Magalhães, Representante Permanente del Brasil

Embajadora Rita Claverie de Sciolli, Representante Permanente de Guatemala

Embajador Alejandro Ordoñez Maldonado, Representante Permanente de Colombia

Embajador Carlos Alberto Játiva Naranjo, Representante Permanente del Ecuador

Embajadora Montserrat Solano Carboni, Representante Permanente de Costa Rica

Embajadora Yolande Yvonne Smith, Representante Permanente de Grenada

Embajador José Manuel Boza Orozco, Representante Permanente del Perú

Embajador Gustavo Tarre, Representante Permanente de Venezuela

Embajadora Luz Elena Baños Riva, Representante Permanente de México

Embajador Hugh Adsett, Representante Permanente del Canadá

Embajador Josué Antinoe Fiallo, Representante Permanente de la República Dominicana

Embajador Jaime Aparicio Otero, Representante Permanente de Bolivia

Embajador Léon Charles, Representante Permanente de Haití

Embajador Luis Alvarado, Representante Interino de Nicaragua

Embajadora Wendy Acevedo, Representante Interina de El Salvador

Ministra Graciela Scarnati Almada, Representante Interina de la Argentina

Señora Judith-Anne Rolle, Representante Alterna del Commonwealth de Dominica

Consejera Estela Queirolo de Tealdi, Representante Alterna del Uruguay

Primer Secretario Jason Darcy Field, Representante Alterno de Guyana

Ministro Deon L. Williams, Representante Alterno de Jamaica

Ministra Consejera Laura Andrea Frampton, Representante Alterna de Belize

Consejera Lorena Noemi Patino, Representante Alterna del Paraguay

Ministra Doris El Sonity Orozco, Representante Alterna de Honduras

Embajador Rolando Barrow, Representante Alterno de Panamá

Señor Bradley Freden, Representante Alterno de los Estados Unidos

Estuvieron también presentes el Secretario General, señor Luis Almagro Lemes, y el Secretario General Adjunto, Embajador Nestor Mendez, Secretario del Consejo Permanente.

Aprobación del orden del día

El PRESIDENTE: Buenas tardes a todos. Tengo el honor de declarar abierta la presente sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente que ha sido convocada a solicitud del Secretario General de la Organización, señor Luis Almagro, para tratar la situación del proceso electoral en Guyana, de acuerdo con su nota CP/INF. 8700/20.

Me permito recordar a todos los presentes el contenido del artículo 46 del Reglamento del Consejo Permanente que dice “las intervenciones de los miembros del Consejo Permanente y de los funcionarios que participen en las sesiones del mismo tendrán, en cada caso, una duración máxima de diez minutos, salvo que el Consejo Permanente estime necesario una prolongación prudencial de las mismas. El Presidente adoptará las medidas que estime procedentes para dar cumplimiento a esta disposición”.

Ahora procedemos a pasar al punto número uno de la agenda que es la aprobación de orden del día.

[El proyecto de orden del día contiene los siguientes puntos:

1. Aprobación del orden del día (CP/OD-2293/20)

2. La situación del proceso electoral en Guyana

- Presentación del señor Bruce Golding, ex Primer Ministro de Jamaica y Jefe de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos en Guyana

- Presentación del señor Luis Almagro, Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos

- Presentación de la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Cooperativa de Guyana, S.E. Dr. Karen Cummings (CP/INF. 8708/20)

- Presentación del Señor Anil Nandlall, Ex Procurador General (CP/INF. 8707/20)

- Presentación del Señor Mark Phillips, Candidato a Primer Ministro (CP/INF. 8707/20)

- Comentarios y observaciones de las delegaciones de los Estados Miembros]

Perfecto, no hay objeción. Damos por aprobado el orden del día.

La situación del proceso electoral en Guyana

Presentación del señor Bruce Golding, ex Primer Ministro de Jamaica y Jefe de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos en Guyana

El PRESIDENTE: Ahora procederemos al punto número dos, la situación del proceso electoral en Guyana. Así que procederemos ahora con la presentación del Jefe de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) en Guyana, el excelentísimo señor Bruce Golding.

Excelentísimo señor Bruce Golding, tiene usted el uso de la palabra.

El EX PRIMER MINISTRO DE JAMAICA Y JEFE DE LA MISIÓN DE OBSERVACIÓN ELECTORAL DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS AMERICANOS EN GUYANA: Ambassador Luis Cordero, Chair of the Permanent Council; Ambassador Riyad Insanally, Permanent Representative of Guyana to the Organization of American States (OAS); His Excellency Luis Almagro, Secretary General; representatives of the OAS member states and permanent observers.

In my last appearance before this regular session of the Permanent Council, on May 13, I reported on electoral developments in Guyana prior and subsequent to the March 2 general and regional elections. Today, in order to make the best use of the time available, I will focus on specific aspects of the post-electoral process that were not detailed in that previous statement.

As a reminder, however, an OAS Electoral Observation Mission (EOM) was present in Guyana from February 20 to March 14, 2020 and observed both the Disciplined Services Vote on February 21 and the main poll on March 2. The Electoral Observation Mission also observed, first-hand, the very irregular occurrences in the tabulation process for District 4—the largest of the ten regions—which altered by more than 20,000 votes the results as recorded on the statements of poll and tainted the overall process.

A key development in the post-electoral period was the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), on April 3, to proceed with a national recount of all ballots cast in the 2020 poll. This was an important step in light of the significant concerns shared by many stakeholders that the results provided up to that point were flawed. On May 4, GECOM published Order 60 of 2020 in the Official Gazette of Guyana, which established the legal basis as well as the procedural and administrative guidelines for the recount. The Order notably states in its third preambular paragraph that, “the President and the Leader of the Opposition and all contesting parties agreed to a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) proposal for a total recount of all electoral districts as a means of assuaging the contesting parties and determining a final credible count.” Implicit in this clause, but also explicitly stated by all key stakeholders, was the expectation that the results of the recount would be respected as the final word on the 2020 election process.

Two members of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission observed the recount from May 6 until its conclusion, 34 days later, on June 8, 2020. They reported that despite some organizational issues, the process was conducted in a professional, transparent and impartial fashion, which allowed GECOM, the political parties and other stakeholders to accurately determine the results for each polling station. The findings of the OAS observers were shared by the CARICOM Team of Scrutineers, who had been assigned a key role in Order 60 in verifying the recount results.

The official results of the recount found 460,352 valid votes. Of this number, the largest share, 233,336 votes, was awarded to the Opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic, the PPP/C, while the ruling Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change, the APNU+AFC Coalition, garnered 217,920 votes—a difference of 15,416 in favor of PPP/Civic. These results, but for minor adjustments, reflected the results contained in the original statements of poll and conclusively established the extent to which the figures for Region 4 were altered to give the APNU+AFC Coalition an overall majority. The recount order required that these results be submitted to GECOM by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), along with a summary of the observation reports prepared for each ballot box during the recount, in order to facilitate a declaration of the elections.

On June 13, 2020, the Chief Elections Officer submitted his report. In addition to the verified results, he provided, as was required by the recount order, detailed summaries of the observations made by persons entitled to participate in the recount. These observations included allegations of anomalies and irregularities that had been made primarily by representatives of the APNU+AFC Coalition. OAS observers and other stakeholders present for the recount had indeed noted the insistence of some political party representatives on including such allegations in the observation reports prepared for each ballot box. A significant number of these allegations concerned unsubstantiated claims of voter impersonation. Neither the OAS Electoral Observer Mission nor any of the other accredited observers who visited polling stations on Election Day—hundreds of polling stations, I must point out—had reported any significant instances of objections based on impersonation made by the polling agents of the APNU+AFC Coalition who were present in most, if not all, polling stations.

In his June 13 report, the Chief Elections Officer went beyond the mandate issued to him in the recount order and adjudged that 275,092 of the 460,352 votes verified by the recount were invalid based on these unsubstantiated allegations, that is, by the stroke of his pen, he summarily discarded sixty percent of the ballots that had been counted and recounted. He adopted the specious methodology of discarding every single vote in those ballot boxes where unproven allegations of impersonation had been made.

The Permanent Council should note that there are only two stages at which ballots can be set aside before the results of the elections are declared: at the polling station where the ballots are first counted and during a recount if one is conducted. Beyond that, the invalidation of any ballot is the sole prerogative of the High Court pursuant to an election petition that can be filed only after the results are officially declared.

Having taken unto himself the authority exclusively assigned by the Constitution to the High Court, the Chief Elections Officer advised that the electoral process in every one of the ten districts, for which he himself was responsible, could not be deemed credible, and he issued new results using the votes that he had unilaterally and arbitrarily determined were valid. These results put the APNU+AFC Coalition at 125,010 and the PPP/C at 56,627, a whopping majority of 68,383 in favor of the APNU+AFC Coalition. In a statement on the issue, on June 15, the OAS noted that all stakeholders had agreed to abide by the results of the recount and called for a process of transition, which would allow the legitimately elected government to assume Office.

A motion filed in Guyana’s Court of Appeal on June 18, by a private citizen, challenged the credibility of the recount and sought to have the Court of Appeal assert jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the election of the president. In a majority decision on June 22, the Court asserted jurisdiction and ruled that votes, in the context of the elections, should be interpreted to mean “valid votes”, the argument presented by the Chief Elections Officer when he assumed for himself the authority of the High Court. The Court of Appeal instructed GECOM to determine the results of the elections on that basis.

On the following day, June 23, the Chief Elections Officer submitted a fresh report to the GECOM Chair using figures other than those certified in the national recount. The new figures presented by the Chief Elections Officer, discarded 115,844 of the votes from the recount process and gave APNU+AFC 171,825 and the PPP/Civic 166,343—a majority for APNU+AFC of 5,482—. The OAS, in its statement on this development, noted that GECOM was already in possession of a result based on the valid votes cast on March 2, through a recount exercise that was approved by all stakeholders. The statement urged that any challenge to this result determined on this basis should be brought through an election petition filed in the High Court, after GECOM have declared the election results based on the recount data.

The matter then moved to Guyana’s final appellate court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). On July 8 the CCJ ruled, in a unanimous decision, to set aside both the June 22 ruling of Guyana’s Court of Appeal and the June 23 report submitted by the Chief Elections Officer. The CCJ also ruled that GECOM should ensure that the Chief Elections Officer submitted a new report along the lines indicated in the recount order. The OAS welcomed the CCJ’s ruling, but expressed concern that efforts continued to be made to avoid compliance with its orders and to further prolong the term of the current government.

GECOM’s Chair subsequently instructed the Chief Elections Officer on three further occasions—on July 9, on July 10 and again on July 13—to prepare and submit his report on the March 2 General and Regional Elections using the valid votes as determined in the national recount. The Chief Elections Officer did not comply and at one point, on July 11, issued yet another set of results, completely ignoring the results of the national recount and reverted instead to the declarations made by the returning officers prior to the recount. This included, of course, the blatantly flawed results declared for Region 4.

On July 13, GECOM’s Chair set aside those ten district declarations issued by the returning officers. A further motion was thereafter filed in the High Court of Guyana by a private citizen, seeking to oblige GECOM to declare the elections based on the original ten declarations which had been struck down by the Chair, and to use those declarations, including the declaration for Region 4, instead of the recount data. Yesterday, Guyana’s High Court ruled that the recount order was valid, and that the March 13 declarations could not be resurrected. In her ruling, the Chief Justice also noted that the Chief Elections Officer was a functionary of and subject to the direction of GECOM. He is therefore required to act on the Chair’s instructions. Immediately upon delivery of the judgment, the legal counsel for the APNU+AFC Coalition indicated that it intends to appeal the Chief Justice’s decision. It is distinctly possible, I must say, that this matter could again traverse all the way through to the CCJ.

In closing, elections are held to determine the will of the people, and once the people’s wishes are clearly stated, they must be upheld. The people of Guyana have been patient, for much longer than can reasonably be expected, while they await the results of a process that was, by all accounts, well conducted on Election Day. They must wholeheartedly be commended for this. They deserve a peaceful transition of government based on the majority vote as reflected in the recount and in support of democracy and the rule of law.

Allow me, please, finally, to make this comment. A litmus test of any democracy is the peaceful and orderly transfer of power if that is so ordained by the expressed will of the people. Sadly, Guyana has failed that test. The people of Guyana are not to be blamed. They expressed their will in a commendably peaceful and orderly manner on March 2, but the pernicious actions of a few have wreaked considerable damage to Guyana’s image and reputation. Even if this debacle is soon and satisfactorily resolved, it will perhaps take a generation and significant institutional reforms for that damage to be fully repaired. The people of Guyana did not deserve this.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, excelentísimo señor Golding por su presentación.

Presentación del señor Luis Almagro, Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos

El PRESIDENTE: Ofrezco ahora la palabra al Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, señor Luis Almagro Lemes. Señor Secretario General, tiene usted el uso de la palabra.

El SECRETARIO GENERAL DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS AMERICANOS: Gracias, señor Presidente del Consejo Permanente, Embajador Luis Cordero. Secretario General Adjunto, Nestor Mendez, un placer.

I want to express my gratitude for the report presented by former Prime Minister Bruce Golding. A comprehensive report, very conclusive and very professional. Thank you very much.

Desde el 2 de marzo, día de los comicios en Guyana, a la fecha, han pasado más de cuatro meses –para ser más exactos, ciento cuarentaiún días– y el proceso aún no ha concluido. Bajo cualquier estándar, se trata de un plazo inadmisible. La insólita demora es el resultado de acciones dedicadas a bloquear la voluntad mayoritaria expresada en las urnas. Luego de una votación que, como acaba de señalar el ex Primer Ministro Bruce Golding, una votación que fue bien ejecutada, en paz, que demostró el espíritu cívico del pueblo de Guyana, comenzaron intentos por entorpecer el procesamiento de los resultados. La interrupción del conteo en la Región4, sin haber finalizado la totalidad de las actas, fue el inicio de una cadena de acciones encaminadas a dilatar y ocultar los resultados confundiendo así a la ciudadanía.

El día 13 se marzo la Misión de Observación Electoral anunció que se retiraba del país debido a las repetidas artimañas que no permitían la verificación transparente de las actas. Para dimensionar esta medida, vale notar que esta situación se ha dado solo en contadas oportunidades durante el transcurso de los más de cincuentaiocho años y doscientas setenta misiones que tiene el Programa de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA).

Tras el anuncio de la autoridad electoral de que se procedería a un reconteo nacional, fuimos testigos de diferentes intentos por bloquear judicialmente este proceso. Dado que el bloqueo no prosperó, algunos buscaron minar la credibilidad del recuento recurriendo, como bien lo ha explicado el Jefe de Misión, a acusaciones infundadas de todo tipo. El reconteo finalmente fue realizado bajo la supervisión de los representantes de los partidos y de los observadores internacionales y hoy conocemos el resultado de la votación del 2 de marzo.

La democracia en Guyana ha quedado, sin embargo, rehén de funcionarios, del oficial principal de elecciones, que insiste en presentar datos alternativos; ello, a pesar de que la Corte de Justicia del Caribe, máxima instancia en el sistema judicial de Guyana, y la autoridad electoral le han ordenado que prepare y presente su informe utilizando los resultados generados durante el recuento nacional.

Frente a esta gravísima situación, la Secretaría General reitera su posición expresada en el comunicado de prensa del 15 de abril sobre la necesidad de que la Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) excluya del proceso electoral actual, y de procesos electorales futuros, a aquellas personas que han actuado de manera parcial, sea por los intereses particulares o partidistas y que han obstaculizado la conclusión del proceso electoral. Guyana se encuentra sumida en la crisis política y de confianza en las instituciones que podría herir gravemente la salud de su sistema democrático. Esto es absolutamente innecesario.

Teniendo en cuenta las facultades que me otorga la Carta Democrática Interamericana, he decidido solicitar al Presidente del Consejo Permanente se incluya en la agenda de este órgano un espacio de inclusión sobre lo que está sucediendo en Guyana. Existe una solución y consiste en respetar los resultados del recuento nacional, tal como fue acordado por los partidos cuando se decidió iniciar este proceso. Más allá de algunos efectos organizativos, el reconteo se llevó adelante de manera transparente, como han indicado los observadores de la OEA y de la Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM), quienes están verdaderamente comprometidos con la democracia en Guyana, independientemente de su orientación partidista, deben respetar los resultados.

Ninguna otra opción es admisible. La única salida es respetar lo acordado, aceptar los resultados del recuento y permitir la formación del nuevo Gobierno escogido por la ciudadanía en el libre ejercicio de sus derechos. La transición debe ser pacífica, ordenada y pronta. Esto es fundamental, especialmente a la luz de la crisis de salud global que requiere que los gobiernos actúen de manera decidida para guiar y cuidar a la población en el contexto de pandemia. El impase político que vive actualmente el país no contribuye al manejo de la crisis.

El futuro gobierno, además de gestionar la pandemia, tendrá otro importante desafío: trabajar para reducir las recientes tensiones políticas que atraviesa el país. Tal como señaló la Misión de Observación Electoral en su informe preliminar, existen graves divisiones étnicas, en la esfera social y política de Guyana, amplificadas por la retórica de la campaña electoral. Es el momento de que el Gobierno y todos los actores políticos trabajen conjuntamente para fortalecer la unidad del país. Es un imperativo moral, es un imperativo político imprescindible.

Este es un momento histórico para Guyana que sin duda alguna definirá su futuro. Hoy las autoridades deben escoger entre dos caminos: el que los lleva hacia el fortalecimiento de la democracia o el que los hace caer en un abismo difícil. Es un momento para que aparezcan los grandes líderes, aquellos que puedan relegar sus intereses particulares, que puedan dejar de lado las disputas partidistas para preservar el sistema en su conjunto. Esto tiene que terminar. This has to come to an end. It is not serving Guyana. It is not serving the institutions; it is not serving the democracy; it is not serving President Granger.

Pedimos respetuosamente no hacer más uso del Poder Judicial para dilatar una solución. El uso de recursos judiciales en este contexto, en esta forma, no es consistente con el buen uso de las instituciones y de los instrumentos jurídicos. Por otra parte, es necesario sellar, de una vez por todas, un pronunciamiento a la autoridad judicial consistente con el recuento observado por la comunidad internacional y conforme fuera acordado por los partidos. Es el momento de las decisiones para preservar la democracia.

Gracias, señor Presidente.

Presentación de la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Cooperativa de Guyana, S.E. Dr. Karen Cummings

El PRESIDENTE: Gracias, señor Secretario General, por sus palabras. Quiero destacar en este momento la presencia de la distinguida Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Cooperativa de Guyana, Su Excelencia Karen Cummings, a quien le ofrecemos una cordial bienvenida a la presente sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente.

Señora Ministra, tiene usted la palabra.

La MINISTRA DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES DE LAS REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Ambassador Luis Cordero; Secretary General; Ambassador Riyad Insanally from Guyana, Representative to the Organization of American States (OAS). I have with me the honorable Attorney General Basil Williams S.C. I also have Permanent Secretary and Ambassador to the Americas, Ms. Phoenix, and other foreign affairs representatives here. Thank you for this opportunity.

My delegation wishes to record its appreciation for the interest of the Organization of American States in the state of the electoral process in Guyana. We have taken careful note of the statements by Mr. Golding and Secretary General Luis Almagro.

This is a difficult time for our country and our political leaders: The democratic institutions are working to resolve the issues arising from the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Let us be clear. The electoral process, which began on March 2, 2020, has not been completed, and its completion rests solely in the hands of the only legal entity that can pronounce on electoral matters in Guyana, that is the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

His Excellency President David Granger has stated publicly, on numerous occasions that “he would abide by any declaration that the GECOM Chairperson makes in keeping with the laws of Guyana.” To date, the Chairperson of GECOM has not made a declaration on these elections. President Granger has repeatedly stated that “the executive branch of government does not have a role in managing elections. That role is given by the Constitution, exclusively and explicitly, to the Elections Commission.”

The matter of a final declaration by GECOM has been through several legal processes, as a result of several, rather serious anomalies that affected the credibility of the result. These legal challenges, catered for in the supreme law of the land and the Constitution, have caused a protracted delay in the process.

The Chief Justice acting in the judgment delivered yesterday, July 20, 2020 ruled that Section 22 of the Election Laws Amendment Act is constitutional and further that Order 60 made by the Elections Commission is valid. She said the results of the national recount must be used to declare the winner of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Attorneys for the applicant indicated to the Court that an appeal against the ruling of the Chief Justice will be filed before the Court of Appeal today, July 21, 2020, and this matter remains with the judiciary. No declaration can be made by the Elections Commission until the litigation process is completed.

This delegation wishes to reiterate and as recognized by the OAS Electoral Observation Mission and other international observers that the General and Regional Elections, on March 2, 2020, were free, fair and orderly, and conducted according to the laws of Guyana. However, after March 2, there were developments regarding our electoral process, which caused an extended delay in an official declaration of the result. Despite the delay due to legal challenges, there is evidence throughout all this, that Guyana remains governed by the rule of law with full respect for the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary.

There has been no breakdown of the rule of law in Guyana and my delegation wishes to reiterate the following facts:

- The electoral process is managed by the Guyana Elections Commission, an independent body, constitutionally charged to conduct and supervise the elections;

- The executive branch of government has never tried to influence, interfere with, or instruct GECOM;

- That President attempted, with the agreement of the leader of the Opposition, to find a way forward by inviting the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to be the interlocutor and to support a recount by GECOM;

- The CARICOM proposal for a recount of all electoral districts as a means of assuaging the contesting parties and defining and determining a final credible count, and by this I mean sought to reconcile the ballots issued with the ballots cast, those that were destroyed, those that were spoiled, not stamped, and as deemed necessary, the counterfoils, the stubs, authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without using ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number of proxies utilized; efforts were made to look at statistical anomalies as observed in the poll books;

- At all times, the executive branch, GECOM and, indeed, all stakeholders have been respectful of the rulings of the Courts;

- President Granger has stated, repeatedly, that he “shall accept the declaration of the results by the Elections Commission, which allow for a democratically elected government to be sworn-in to office.”

Guyana is a democratic nation and intends to remain so. Further, there is no breakdown in law and order in Guyana. Guyana continues to remain a peaceful law-abiding state; and throughout this lengthy process, which has been guided by several constitutional provisions, the people of Guyana have remained patient, calm, and peaceful. The international community should therefore also be patient, and not seek to influence unduly the constitutional and legal processes which are currently ongoing in Guyana.

I thank you, and now I will ask my Attorney General just to clarify some spoken words by the Secretary General and Mr. Golding.

Thank you.

EL PROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Chair, Ambassador Luis Cordero; honorable Secretary General; our Ambassador, Mr. Insanally; colleagues; members of the Organization of American States (OAS).

I am happy to be here if not only to disabuse the minds of the Secretary General and, of course, hope to persuade the honorable Bruce Golding that the picture painted of doom and gloom in Guyana certainly is not one if you are on the ground here, but you will believe that type of chaotic situation exists.

We have a long tradition going from Roman-Dutch Law and the English Common Law of the rule of law, a fine judicial system that Mr. Golding himself could attest to in Guyana. And I believe that it is a very great characteristic that the Guyanese people are litigious, and they would not go and raid Police stations and shoot them up or indulge in any other violent acts. But there were, of course seek recourse to our courts and that is very laudable, that in all what is happening, the Guyanese people have remained calm. Why? Because they know they have a system of law that they could have recourse to and there are winners and there are losers in the system, and so we just have to abide the outcome of the judicial process.

I heard that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) —and let me say this— the history of our laws and our judicial system entail that once you have an election, and the election has entered into election mode, the country has entered into the election mode, that is we are in the period of election, it was held in several cases in Guyana that the court will not entertain any applications before the declaration of the results of the election, after which you could seek recourse and election petition. That has been a time-hallowed tradition and practice in Guyana. But what happened on this occasion? On this occasion, there was a contention in one of the ten electoral districts, about a regional Elections Officer having problems with this tabulation, etcetera. I was there. I saw what happened in the counting station, and I was disappointed in what happened, the manner in which it was trashed. By people who I believe ought to have known better.

But what has happened there is that they felt that when they called out from a statement of poll in the possession of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and under our legislation the only statement of poll that matters is the statement of poll of the Elections Commission. If it were, otherwise, it would be mayhem and bedlam. If all 17, 16 contesting parties could be calling out the results by the Elections Commission from a statement of poll, could then say “no, I do not agree with that because my statement of poll does not say the same thing, etcetera”? It would be brink of chaos. But our law and our election machinery, they do not organize like that. So, the statement of polls are guided by GECOM’s statement of polls, and that is what the legislation says.

But they went to the Court after that. The Court quashed the first declaration, and the Court directed the Regional Election Officers (REOs) how to go and continue the process. She told them it is in his discretion to determine this procedure, she told them he could restart the process entirely or he could continue from where he left off. So why I wish to emphasize at this point is that that declaration was codirected by Chief Justice herself, and in fact after that process was started, and let me say that the recourse to the Court in breach of the tradition I spoke about, honorable Chairman and Secretary General, colleagues, was by law other than the Opposition party, the People’s Progressive Party. We have never had that before because we always felt that if you were to enter on such a course, you will never know when the elections could be declared, and it has come to pass. So, it is not like the Government or the APNU+AFC is doing anything on toward.

The first recourse to the CCJ was not made by us, it was made by the Opposition. They were dissatisfied by the decision of the Court of Appeal, and so their rightly sought recourse to our apex court. We do not have a problem with that. It is better that we have that type of resolution in Guyana than to have the opposite that you see all over the world. We are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. We are trying to mold our country into one people; six different races to one people, one nation, one destiny. We are getting there, we are getting there, but lo and behold, we have a lot of outside intervention in our in our affairs. But we will continue.

Our President has said from the outset that he will abide by the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission. There has been no decision by our Elections Commission, and he also said that he will abide by the rulings of the courts. He has abided by the rulings of the courts. He will abide by the Constitution, and he has abided by the Constitution. So, what I would say, respectfully colleagues, Secretary General, Chair, I would say that you should give us a chance. I mean, all of this is premature. There has been no declaration. If it were a declaration, we could understand, but we have not reached that stage, trying to get there, and we wish to say this: We could be more affronted, our President is an incumbent president. He came into office five years ago, and he started a transformation to bring Guyana into a proper state that people are proud of us, after the 23 years that had occurred before. When we were a drug state, a narco state, a pariah state. We have stopped all of that in Guyana. When we came into Government, we were blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and within a year, we were removed. The European Union (EU) also had us blacklisted, we came out of that blacklist.

El PRESIDENTE: Disculpe, disculpe, tal vez pudiera, con todo respeto, ir concluyendo con la presentación. Hemos pasado más de diez minutos, así que le agradeceré mucho si pudiera ir concluyendo.

Muchas gracias.

El PROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERTIVA DE GUYANA: My humble apologies, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly therefore, let me say that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) never made a ruling that the results of the recount must be used by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) in determining the results of the elections. That was never a decision of the CCJ. And also, we wish to say that those recount figures came from the order that was made to try to assuage the contestants, but the CCJ has held that order was subsidiary legislation, it is the lowest level of legislation in Guyana, and it said it could not be used to incorporate the Constitution of Guyana, which is the supreme law. And the CCJ has also said that it was in tension with the Constitution and therefore must go, and it was invalid. And lastly, the CCJ said that it could not create a different electoral regime from the existing one. And that is where we are; we have to determine therefore, it seems from the judgment of the CCJ—I am finishing now—that having nullified that order made by GECOM, the recount order, it is then sad to say that you have to go back to the original electoral machinery, and that is what now has come up for resolution in the polls.

And Mr. Golding, I think he is right, it could have a destiny where it is resolved at the apex court, but we are all trying to get this thing over with, and we are hoping that we will have a very quick and peaceful resolution of this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Secretary General.

Presentación del señor Anil Nandlall, Ex Procurador General

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias a ambos, Su Excelencia Karen Cummings, muchas gracias por sus palabras. Y siguiendo el orden del día que ha sido aprobado, ahora ofrezco la palabra al señor Anil Nandlall, Ex Procurador General.

Señor Nandlall, tiene usted la palabra.

El EXPROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Thank you very much. I got cut off, and perhaps it is part of the shenanigans of the government, because that is exactly how they have been behaving in the electoral process.

Sir, I want, first of all, thank you very much for accommodating us, and for affording us the opportunity of being heard. I want to thank former Prime Minister Bruce Golding and, of course, the Secretary General Luis Almagro for the presentations made.

And I want to go straight into answering the Minister and the learned Attorney General of Guyana. The elections in Guyana were observed by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), by the Carter Center, by Commonwealth, by a host of local organizations here and, of course, by the Organization of American States (OAS) team, and they all certified the elections to be free and fair. The problem arose with the tabulation of the Region 4 results, and this tabulation did not take place in secrecy, but was done openly and observed by all the observers, and everyone saw in broad daylight that the officer, the relevant returning officer did not comply with the law in the tabulation of the results by using the statements of poll, which would have been a summary of the results counted at the night of poll, by instead used a spreadsheet. No one knows where that spreadsheet came from, but that spreadsheet contained fictitious figures and bear no resemblance to the actual ballots cast, and that was the spreadsheet that was used to declare the Region 4 results.

When the numbers were compared with the actual statements of poll, one found that in that tabulation the returning officer fraudulently gifted over 23 thousand votes to the APNU+AFC that they did not get at the poll, and in so doing he actually invented over 17 thousand votes that were not even cast at the elections. And as a result of that, in the presence of everyone, in the presence of all the ambassadors, all the observers, all the international observers, as a result of that we were forced to go to the Court, and I heard Mr. Williams say that that was never done before. But when we went to the Court, the Chief Justice followed a precedent of a case filed by the very Mr. Basil Williams in 1997, when they tried in 1997 to stop President Janet Jagan from being sworn in, and he went to the Court during that time, and it is that precedent that the learned Chief Justice used as the basis to entertain our claim. And what the Chief Justice did was to direct the returning officer to go back and use the statements of poll as the basis for the declaration and tabulation of the results.

The returning officer refused to comply with the directions of the Chief Justice and again declared wrong results. And it was then that an agreement was arrived at between President David Granger and the leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, brokered by CARICOM, presided over by Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, and under that agreement there was to be national recount of all the ballots cast so as to deal with that controversy that erupted.

Mr. Granger went into that agreement, and immediately after that, while he is hiding in the background and committing himself to the world and to CARICOM to do this recount, he began to use his minions to dismantle that very agreement that he entered into. So, he has three Commissioners at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and they refuse. Although GECOM itself agreed to carry out the recount, the three Commissioners never gave their accord to that decision. Instead, they conspired with one of the candidates, and they went to the Court to stop the recount from taking place.

That case went to the High Court, they lost. They appeal to the Court of Appeal of Guyana, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the GECOM has the power to do that recount, and the Court of Appeal essentially endorsed that recount to take place. So, they were forced to go to the recount, and they participated in the recount. President Granger, again, as he usually does, expresses his platitudes, and made sanctimonious declarations to be bound by this national recount exercise. They participated fully, and when they realize they were losing the recount, they started to fabricate these allegations of dead and migrant people voting.

Importantly, this recount was observed by CARICOM, a CARICOM team. They blocked the Carter team from observing the recount, using the COVID-19 pandemic as the basis. We asked for this recount to be livestreamed on national television; they objected. We eventually got the recount to be streamed on the radio. And they also wanted to ban cellphones from being used in the recount process; we had to fight to get that done.

Anyhow, the recount concluded, and all the parties participated, and CARICOM produced a report at the end, and in that report, CARICOM certified the recount to have been credible and transparent. Let me quote from the CARICOM report quickly. They said, “We are of the unshakable belief that the people of Guyana expressed their will at the ballots, and the results are completely acceptable.” They said, also, that the recounting of the votes were conducted with as much precision as possible, and with absolutely no hint of bias on the part of GECOM station workers. Their impartiality with respect to the vote recount was outstanding, and of course, at your own time, you can look at that report.

Now, that recount was also observed by the diplomatic missions here, by the international community, and all of them—I have a long list of them, including the OAS, the Commonwealth, the CARICOM, the ABC countries, the ABC and E countries, the United Nations—, every important person and organization in the Hemisphere that had any connection with this recount process at this electoral process, made public calls for the recount results to be used. All of them. But what happened is that the APNU+AFC managed to infiltrate the staff at the Secretariat and started to undermine the recount process, from the beginning, and it got the Chief Elections Officer, although he supervised the recount process from the beginning, when time came for the results of the recount to be enclosed in the report to be prepared by him and given to the Commission, he gave a wrong report, a fraudulent report which did not reflect the recount results.

Although he is subject to the Commission, as was made clear, he is a servant of the Commission, they went to the Court again in their efforts to try to get a court to assist them in completing this fraudulent design. They went to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal ruled that votes in the Constitution meant valid votes, and Mr. Chief Elections Officer took it upon himself that he has a power, given that interpretation of the Court, to determine what is valid and invalid vote, and in so doing invalidated over 115 thousand votes and prepared a report that once again gifted APNU+AFC electoral victory.

El PRESIDENTE: Señor Nandlall, con todo respeto, ha abordado sus diez minutos. Por favor, ir haciendo sus conclusiones.

El EXPROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: The Commission refused to accept that report, so we appeal that decision to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the Court examined the recount process and certified it to be valid and legal. They looked at the recount order and certified that recount order to be legal and valid, and the CCJ also ruled that the decision of the results must be the basis for the declaration. And as the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was about to instruct the Chief Executive Officer again to use the results from the recount process, they have gone again to the Court, using one of their surrogates. And the Court, again, has ruled that the recount was valid, that the order under which the recount was done was valid, and also that the recount results must be used as the basis for the declaration of the results. Now, they are appealing that decision to the Guyana Court of Appeal.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Nandlall por su presentación.

Presentación del señor Mark Phillips, Candidato a Primer Ministro

El PRESIDENTE: Seguimos con el orden del día, ahora ofrezco la palabra al señor Mark Phillips, candidato a Primer Ministro.

Señor Phillips, tiene usted la palabra.

El CANDIDATO A PRIMER MINISTRO DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Mr. Chairman, Your Excellency Ambassador Luis Cordero; Secretary General, Luis Almagro; excellencies, ambassadors of all countries of the Organization of American States (OAS); Minister Karen Cummings, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guyana; and Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General of Guyana, Mr. Basil Williams. Thank you for this opportunity to speak at this forum.

First of all, let me take this opportunity to commend Prime Minister Golding for his most accurate report on the electoral impasse and the political situation up to date in Guyana. As you are aware from all the presenters before, we have a situation in Guyana today where the APNU+AFC, the party in government, is seeking to use Mr. Clairmont Mingo fraudulent declaration in order to get them to get accepted as the winners of the election, a declaration which was condemned by the international community.

Mr. Chairman, we have 18 months without a functioning parliament in Guyana. We have a situation where the Government of Guyana is making bald statements against leaders of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and other leaders of regional and hemispheric organizations who are all recommending that the recount results be used to declare the election results in Guyana. Mr. Chairman, the People’s Progressive Party, the Opposition Party in Guyana, has won a peaceful and orderly elections that were held on March 2. Mr. Chairman, the people of Guyana, is still after 140 days, is awaiting the peaceful transition of power from the Government of the APNU+AFC to the PPP/C led government by Dr. Irfaan Ali, our President elect.

As you heard before, Mr. Chairman, the recount results are completely acceptable. The actual count of the vote was indeed transparent, and none other than the President of Guyana, President David Granger, is on record stating that CARICOM is the most legitimate interlocutor on the situation in Guyana. Mr. Chairman, I call on the APNU+AFC Government not to just attend this forum, but to respect the will of the people of Guyana, respect the rule of law in Guyana, and respect the democratic norms and values of the Organization of American States, and concede that they have lost the elections in Guyana.

Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the declaration which we all await, I wish to state that the declaration is just a formality because the results of the recount is a public document for the entire world to see and to note that the PPP/C, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic has won those elections, after 460,000 valid votes were allotted, in the sense that 233,000 of those valid votes were won by the PPP/C, 217,000 of those votes by the APNU+AFC, and the remaining 9,000 votes by the smaller parties.

The results of the recount will not change. The declaration is just a matter of formality. The PPP/C, that is the People’s Progressive Party, of which I am the Prime Minister candidate, has won these elections, and it is about time that the APNU+AFC respect the urging of the international community, respect the urging of CARICOM, and allow the People’s Progressive Party/Civic to transition peacefully into the formation of the government of Guyana.

Your Excellency Ambassador Luis Cordero, thank you for your opportunity given to me today to speak at this forum.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por la presentación al señor Mark Phillips.

Comentarios y observaciones de las delegaciones de los Estados Miembros

El PRESIDENTE: Ahora ofrezco la palabra a todas las delegaciones que deseen formular sus comentarios.

Tenemos a la Representación de Guyana. Reconozco a la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores, doña Karen Cummings.

Tiene usted la palabra.

La MINISTRA DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Thank you. I just want to make two points. I wanted Mr. Nandlall to actually retract his statement, because it was imputing dishonesty in the President, and as the Minister of Foreign Affairs I will not condone such behavior. So, I will be happy if he retracts his statement imputing that the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is dishonest. That is the first point.

Secondly, we spoke about the Caribbean Community’s report (CARICOM). Of course, in our estimation it was not a representative sample, and at the end of it, all they have said it is reasonably credible. I do not know if either something is credible or not credible, so I just want to put that before the 18 per cent, which is not a representative sample, they did not state the conclusion, and so it is really unfair to make such a general conclusion, it is a fallacy, it is a generalization of a process which they have not concluded.

Thank you very much.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Cooperativa de Guyana. Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra al Embajador Ronald Sanders de Antigua y Barbuda.

Embajador Sanders, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE ANTIGUA Y BARBUDA: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, while Antigua and Barbuda makes its presentation on its own behalf, I wish you to note, Sir, that we are also fully associated with the statement that would be made on the CARICOM’s behalf by the Chair of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Ambassador Gilchrist of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, but I will proceed now to make my delegation’s own statement.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation recalls that consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to which all of our countries are signatories, the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy, and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it. Yet today is 141 days since general and regional elections were held in Guyana, on March 2. Four and a half long months have passed, and still there is no election result. In the meantime, four other Caribbean countries have held elections, and elected governments have assumed office peacefully, most notably the country nearest to Guyana, Suriname.

Mr. Chairman, being entitled to enter the Guinness Book of Records is usually for a remarkably deserving event. However, Guyana has now been inscribed into the pages of the Guinness Book of Records for the unworthy event of having achieved the longest delay in the world’s history between an election and a declaration of its result. Democracy, Mr. Chair, is not being served, nor is the people of Guyana’s right to democracy being served, and democracy delayed is democracy denied. Since March 2, the Guyanese nation has been subject to one delay after another that has dragged out this process, testing the patience of a tolerant international community, and tempting protests and civil unrest within Guyana.

It will be recalled that CARICOM was invited by the parties in Guyana to play a role in the elections, shortly after disputes arose over the tabulation of the March 2 ballots. The invitation was extended jointly by the President of Guyana and the leader of the Opposition with the agreement of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). There was good reason for this invitation to be issued and accepted. Repeatedly, CARICOM governments, including Guyana’s, have expressed through various public instruments their commitment to democracy and popular participation, and they have pledged to work together to maintain and strengthen the institutions and processes essential to democratic government, including respect for the will of the people as expressed through free and fair elections on a regular basis.

In playing a role in Guyana’s elections, CARICOM did no more than carry on the requirements of the CARICOM Treaty, by which in its preamble every CARICOM government accepted all the various agreements, including a Charter of Civil Society which the Conference of Heads of Government adopted on February 19, 1997. Article 4 of that charter, under the heading “Political Rights”, declares that, “States shall ensure the existence of a fair and open democratic system through the holding of free elections, and reasonable intervals, by secret ballot, underpinned by an electoral system in which all can have confidence, and which will ensure the free expression of the will of the people in the choice of their representatives.” In this regard, as we have heard, CARICOM sent a team to Guyana, with the agreement of the parties and the Elections Commission to scrutinize the national recount of the ballots of March 2. That process was also observed by representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The national recount that was certified by each of the supervisors of each region in Guyana, showed that the People’s Progressive Party had been allotted the majority of votes. But despite the best efforts of CARICOM, utilizing all its institutions, including the final appellate court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), one party has persistently delayed acceptance of the result, and thus frustrated a democratic and peaceful end to this matter. And it is not as if an aggrieved party does not have recourse if it can establish that allegations of elections irregularities are valid. We have heard both speakers from the two political parties who spoke here today confirm that there is an elections Court to which allegations can be taken for judgment after a result has been declared.

Now, the former Chair of CARICOM, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, after months of CARICOM trying its best to bring about a democratic solution to the elections impasse, stated: “Regrettably we have seen a level of gamesmanship that has left much to be desired, and has definitely not portrayed our Caribbean region in the best light. This is definitely not our finest hour and we must not shy away from that reality.”

Yesterday, in a third round of Court hearings on this matter, the Chief Justice of Guyana, Justice Roxane George, dismissed yet another case brought by representatives of the APNU+AFC political party. In particular, she ruled that the case, seeking to block GECOM from declaring the winner of the elections using the recount results, was “hopelessly flawed.”

It should be noted that the issues, raised in the case, had already been the subject of extensive hearings and judgment by the final appeal court, the Caribbean Court of Justice. The current Chair of CARICOM, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, has described the judgment of the Court “as lucid in every material particular”, making the point that “as Guyana’s highest, and final, appellate court, it is authoritative.”

In her ruling yesterday, the Chief Justice stated quite firmly that, “there must be finality to judicial decisions. Myriad persons cannot be permitted to engage the court with multiple applications regarding the same issue which has been decided, and shield behind that claim that they were not a party to the previous proceedings. To so permit would be to waste precious judicial time and resources.” In short —she said— “this cannot be allowed.” She went on to note that the issues raised in the application were res judicata, in that they were already heard and determined by previous judgments of higher courts.

Yet, the representatives of APNU+AFC have today, through their representatives, filed another appeal to the Guyana Court against the rulings of the Chief Justice. This new appeal and its consequences could take until September 1, before the full cycle of hearings and judgments end. Democracy is being delayed, Mr. Chairman, and democracy delayed is democracy denied.

It should be noted that GECOM is not been able to declare a result of the election process, because supporters of APNU+AFC are encouraged to take the matter to the courts again and again and again. Were this not so, GECOM could have made a declaration long ago.

Mr. Chairman, the role played by the OAS in this matter has been exemplary. Secretary General Luis Almagro responded to the Guyana invitation to observe the Guyana elections, and kept the Electoral Observation Mission there long after every other mission had left. Further, the Secretary General maintained an observation mission in Guyana throughout the national recount of the votes scrutinized by CARICOM, a total of 34 days.

Displaying tolerance, restraint and care, the Secretary General allowed CARICOM to take the lead, providing support where necessary. But, eventually, as every genuine effort has been made and ignored, and against the reality of growing impatience by the international community and within Guyana itself, Mr. Luis Almagro declared that: “The peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it. It is past time that the current leaders of Guyana comply with their democratic responsibilities and allow the newly elected chairman to take its place.”

And that, Mr. Chairman, is where this matter has now reached. Every member state of the OAS cares about Guyana, and its people. None of us takes a political side in this elections impasse. Our only interest is the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. It is democracy that is now threatened with implications for the Caribbean region and our Hemisphere. It is democracy that we must defend and ensure is delivered. The troubling situation in Guyana should be kept under this Council’s review, and returned to this Council for action, should the Secretary General consider it necessary.

Thank you very much, Chair.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador Sanders.

Ahora procederemos a darle la palabra al Embajador de Colombia, y les ruego por favor acomodarse a los tiempos estipulados ya dichos anteriormente. Muchas gracias.

Embajador de Colombia, por favor, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE COLOMBIA: Señor Presidente, Embajador de Honduras, Luis Cordero. Señor Secretario General, señor Secretario General Adjunto, embajadores.

Estimado Embajador Cordero, le expreso mis felicitaciones por el inicio de sus funciones como Presidente de este Consejo Permanente. Permítame desearle los mayores éxitos y, por favor, cuente con el apoyo de la Misión Permanente de Colombia para el logro de sus objetivos.

Señor Presidente, esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente que ha sido convocada por usted responde a una solicitud realizada por el señor Secretario General y, claramente, ameritaba ser atendida. El Continente viene experimentando grandes retos que hoy se evidencian aún más por los efectos generados por la pandemia del COVID-19. Sin duda, cualquier reto puede ser afrontado de una mejor manera si nuestras instituciones democráticas son fuertes y están bien protegidas. En cambio, si ellas son débiles, seguramente muchos de nuestros problemas difícilmente podrán ser solucionados.

Es por ello que no podemos ser indiferentes ante los hechos que han ocurrido en Guyana a raíz del reciente proceso electoral. Las elecciones generales y regionales se llevaron a cabo el pasado 2 de marzo. Sin embargo, y como fue puesto en conocimiento de la opinión pública, no se obtuvieron los resultados de las votaciones en todas las regiones, especialmente en la Región 4, debido a confusos hechos que se tradujeron en denuncias de presuntas irregularidades. Luego de varios días, se logró realizar el reconteo, así lo anunciaron actores políticos y organizaciones internacionales. Siendo así, la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), a través de un comunicado con fecha de 23 de junio, alentó a la Comisión Electoral de Guyana (GECOM) a avanzar en la conclusión del proceso electoral con base en los resultados del recuento nacional y de acuerdo con la voluntad de la mayoría del electorado.

Colombia, como miembro de esta Organización y respetuoso de los instrumentos interamericanos, reafirma su posición histórica en el reconocimiento de la democracia, la seguridad y la vigencia de los derechos humanos como medios para construir el desarrollo. Es por ello que siempre estaremos dispuestos a hacer valer la responsabilidad que todos los Estados Miembros asumimos en el cumplimiento de los instrumentos interamericanos que hacen referencia a su respeto en el Continente.

Por lo expuesto, Colombia, de manera respetuosa y fraternal, invita a Guyana a que se apoye en los instrumentos interamericanos y en la cooperación en materia electoral que ofrece la OEA para la difusión oficial de los resultados del reconteo electoral. Esto evitaría que la incertidumbre se prolongue innecesariamente, así como daños al sistema democrático. Los ciudadanos tienen un derecho básico cuando participan de procesos electorales, y es el de conocer los resultados sin demora, de manera transparente y respetando el ordenamiento jurídico nacional.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador Ordóñez.

Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra al Embajador Adsett del Canadá.

Embajador, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DEL CANADÁ: Mr. Chair, and greetings as well to the Secretary General, the Assistant Secretary General and colleagues this afternoon.

Let me start by thanking the Secretary General for requesting this special meeting of the Permanent Council, and for his presentation, and let me also thank the Honorable Bruce Golding, former Prime Minister of Jamaica and Head of the Organization of American States (OAS) Electoral Observation Mission as well, not only for his presentation today, but also for coming back again to this Permanent Council to brief us, and for his very hard and important work. I acknowledge as well and thanks very much to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Cummings, for being here, as well as Mr. Anil Nandlall and Mr. Mark Phillips.

Canada strongly regrets the extended delay in declaring election results in Guyana, a delay that has now lasted more than four months since elections were held on March 2.

Le Canada regrette fortement le retard prolongé dans la déclaration des résultats électoraux en Guyana, un état qui dure depuis le 2 mars, il y a quatre (4) mois maintenant.

En vue des élections générales, le Canada a promis un soutien technique à la Commission électorale du Guyana (GECOM) et au Carter Center pour superviser et historier les élections. Le Canada est également heureux d'avoir appuyé l'équipe de haut niveau de la Communauté des Caraïbes (CARICOM) et a observé le recomptage des votes conjoint afin d’assurer l’intégrité de façon indépendante.

Le Canada a également plaidé à l'entremise de ces déclarations publiques au nom desquelles on compte plusieurs déclarations conjointes avec d'autres membres de la communauté internationale en faveur d'une conclusion transparente crédible du processus électoral.

In the interest of the democratic rights of the people of Guyana, and in light of the obligation of governments to promote and defend democracy as set out in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, Canada firmly maintains that the rule of law and democratic processes must be respected, and a declaration be announced without further delay.

Canada supports calls by the OAS, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Commonwealth and civil society organizations to announce the results based on the national recount, as validated by OAS and CARICOM observer missions and upheld by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), and again yesterday by Guyana’s Chief Justice in dismissing the latest challenge to the recount results.

Canada is committed to working with partners at the OAS and will consider using all tools at our disposal to demand a swift and transparent conclusion to the election process and to hold accountable those who prevent it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador Adsett.

Procedemos ahora a darle la palabra a la Embajadora de San Vicente y las Granadinas.

Embajadora Gilchrist, tiene usted la palabra.

La REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE SAN VICENTE Y LAS GRANADINAS: Thank you, Chair. Your Excellency Luis Cordero; His Excellency Bruce Golding; Her Excellency Karen Cummings and team; Secretary General Luis Almagro; Assistant Secretary General Nestor Mendez; excellencies, alternates.

Chair, the delegation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines notes with gratitude the presentation of His Excellency Bruce Golding. We note as well the remarks of Her Excellency Karen Cummings and her team, and I speak now on behalf of the other member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Chair, in our intervention on May 13, 2020, on the item “Update of the March 2020 General Election in Guyana”, a report by the Chief of the Organization of American States (OAS) Electoral Observation Mission, His Excellency Bruce Golding, former Prime Minister of Jamaica, we indicated that we would return to this Permanent Council to keep it apprised of the progress of CARICOM’s work. In this regard, we advised that the national recount scrutinized by the CARICOM team was concluded.

CARICOM has been monitoring with concern the political tensions in its neighbor and sister state in the OAS, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. Both, the former Chair and the current Chair of CARICOM have called for a declaration of the March 2 elections results, based on the national recount, so to have members of the international community, including governments of member states of this Organization.

It will be recalled that CARICOM was invited to play a role in the Guyana elections shortly after the disputes arose over the tabulation of the March 2 ballot. The invitation was extended jointly by the President of Guyana and the leader of the Opposition, with the agreement of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). In playing a role in Guyana’s elections, CARICOM is doing no more than carrying out the requirements of the CARICOM treaty by which, in its preamble, every CARICOM government accepted all the various agreements, including the Charter of Civil Society, which the Conference of Heads of Governments adopted on February 19, 1997.

At Article 6 of the Charter, under the heading “Political Rights,” the Charter declares that “states shall ensure the existence of a fair and open democratic system through the holding of free elections, and reasonable intervals, by secret ballot, underpinned by an electoral system in which all can have confidence, and which will ensure the free expression of the will of the people in the choice of their representatives.” CARICOM’s role therefore is not interference in the domestic affairs of a foreign country, it is the participation in the Community affairs, which is the essence of the revised CARICOM Treaty and of the Charter of Civil Society that preceded it.

We in CARICOM underscore that, in our concerted efforts to assist Guyana, our willingness to help resides in our desire to reach peaceful solutions and not to widen the current divisions, we urge the relevant authorities in Guyana and all stakeholders to respect the rule of law, and to make progress in finalizing the legal processes, including taking account of rulings by Guyana’s apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). The decision was delivered on July 8 this year.

This Organization has accompanied this entire process in Guyana, from elections on May 2 and throughout the national recount of the votes, scrutinized by CARICOM. In doing so, the OAS has given space and time to all parties in Guyana to settle all of the issues related to the elections, a process that has gone on for four and a half months.

CARICOM recommends that the OAS Permanent Council remains seized of the situation in Guyana, and that it reviews the situation as may be necessary. In the meantime, the CARICOM group at the OAS commends the people of Guyana for their patience and calm and assures them of our continuing familial support.

I thank you, Chair.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajadora.

Procedemos a darle la palabra a la Embajadora Luz Elena Baños de la Delegación de México.

Embajadora, tiene usted la palabra.

La REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE MÉXICO: Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Saludamos a los oradores que han participado en esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente, en particular a la señora Canciller Karen Cummings, a quienes hemos escuchado con mucho interés describir el recuento de hechos desde los comicios.

En ocasión de esta convocatoria de sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente, México desea expresar su solidaridad con el pueblo guyanés, a quien corresponde determinar su destino democrático. Mi país hace votos para que se cumplan en Guyana los deberes democráticos contemplados en sus leyes y, con base en ellas, se respete la decisión popular expresada el 2 de marzo pasado en las urnas para facilitar la transición democrática, constitucional, conciliada y pacífica que merece ese hermano pueblo caribeño, muy particularmente en la difícil situación que estamos viviendo en nuestra región por la crisis sanitaria y económica.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajadora.

Ahora ofrecemos la palabra al Embajador de Venezuela, Embajador Gustavo Tarre.

Embajador Tarre tiene usted la palabra. Puede presionar el botón solicitando la palabra nuevamente. Creo que lo hemos perdido.

Procedemos a dar la palabra al Embajador Fernando Simas del Brasil.

Embajador Simas, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DEL BRASIL: Apreciado Presidente do Conselho Permanente, Embaixador Luis Cordero, digno Representante de Honduras, quero, inicialmente, estender os votos de todo êxito, à frente do Conselho Permanente. Fique certo de contar com o pleno apoio da Missão Permanente do Brasil no exercício de suas elevadas funções.

Gostaria de agradecer ao Secretário-Geral, Luis Almagro, pela iniciativa de solicitar a realização desta sessão extraordinária do Conselho Permanente, para tratar da preocupante situação eleitoral na Guiana, tomando boa nota do comunicado que foi emitido em 15 de junho último, também.

Agradecemos também pelo comparecimento da Excelentíssima Chanceler Karen Cummings, a quem estendemos cordiais cumprimentos, assim com, saudamos o Embaixador Riyad Insanally e agradecemos aos demais convidados hoje pelas exposições feitas até aqui.

Após as graves observações feitas em 13 de maio, pelo Chefe da Missão de Observação Eleitoral da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA), que tivemos a honra de ouvir novamente na tarde de hoje, observações que colocaram em cheque a credibilidade do processo de contagem de votos na Guiana, era certamente importante, relevante e urgente, que o Conselho Permanente voltasse a examinar o tema.

Passados quatro meses do pleito, o Brasil avalia que protelar a conclusão do processo eleitoral representa uma série ameaça para a estabilidade na Guiana. Às vésperas de se completarem vinte anos da adoção da Carta Democrática Interamericana, os Estados membros da OEA não podemos silenciar diante das tentativas de afastamento dos compromissos democráticos que foram assumidos por meio daquele documento.

Senhor Presidente, o Governo brasileiro endossa os apelos feitos pela Comunidade do Caribe (CARICOM) e pela OEA, por uma conclusão sem mais adiamentos do processo eleitoral. Da mesma forma, o Brasil soma-se às diversas declarações da comunidade internacional de preocupação com a situação na Guiana ao destacar, em particular, que não há qualquer impedimento para a declaração dos resultados da eleição, com base nos votos apurados no processo de recontagem. Recontagem cujos resultados são finais e conclusivos, como acaba de dizer, nesta tarde de hoje, sua Excelência o Senhor Bruce Golding, Chefe da Missão de Observação Eleitoral nas eleições de 2 de março último.

Somamo-nos, também, a todos aqueles que lamentaram e condenaram as ameaças, ainda que virtuais, à integridade física de autoridades eleitorais guianenses e suas famílias, bem como as depredações do patrimônio público e privado que tiveram lugar nas últimas semanas.

Senhor Presidente, em momento tão delicado como este, é fundamental que as forças políticas guianenses respeitem a legítima vontade popular, emanada das eleições, em linha com a recente sentença da Corte Caribenha de Justiça, de modo a garantir o pronto anúncio oficial dos novos governantes do país.

Esperamos que a última etapa do processo eleitoral guianense seja encerrada o quanto antes e que a Guiana possa fazer parte do grupo de nações hemisféricas comprometidas com os mais elevados valores democráticos que se vêm consagrados nos instrumentos jurídicos interamericanos.

Muito obrigado pela atenção de todos.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador Simas.

Creo que ya tenemos de regreso al Embajador Gustavo Tarre de Venezuela. Así que ofrecemos la palabra al Embajador Tarre de Venezuela.

Embajador, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE VENEZUELA: Muchísimas gracias, señor Presidente, y aprovecho para reiterarle nuestros deseos del mayor éxito en el desempeño de la función que recientemente acaba de asumir.

Como ya lo hemos recordado, el 2 de marzo de este año se llevaron a cabo elecciones generales para elegir a los sesentaicinco miembros de la Asamblea Nacional de la República Cooperativa de Guyana, quien a su vez debía nombrar al presidente para el período constitucional del año 2020 al 2025. Han pasado más de cuatro meses desde la celebración de este proceso electoral y aún no tenemos una proclamación de los resultados.

Los hechos en torno a esta elección son bien conocidos por este Consejo gracias a las excelentes presentaciones dadas por el Jefe de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) para estos comicios, el señor Bruce Golding, quien expuso hace dos meses y acaba nuevamente de exponer, serias violaciones a la voluntad popular y al Estado de derecho. Igualmente lo hicieron los distinguidos oradores que me precedieron en el uso de la palabra, incluyendo al Secretario General de la Organización y al jefe del principal partido de oposición en Guyana. Igualmente, agradecemos la presencia de la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores y del Fiscal General de la República de Guyana.

Nos acaba de recordar el Primer Ministro Golding que las elecciones son para expresar la voluntad del pueblo y que esa voluntad debe prevalecer. Igualmente, quiero recordar la alerta expresada tanto por el Jefe de la Misión de Observación Electoral como por el Secretario General Luis Almagro, con relación al daño que esto le ha causado a la democracia de Guyana y que tardará muchos años en recuperarse.

En vista de estos sucesos, nos sumamos a los llamados hechos por la Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM) a través de su Presidente, el señor Ralph González, la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), y la propia Organización de Estados Americanos, de que se respete la voluntad del pueblo de Guyana y el Estado de derecho y que esta situación tenga una solución pacífica y pronta.

Presidente, no es la primera vez que este Consejo Permanente debate sobre irregularidades relacionadas a procesos electorales y lamentamos que estas situaciones se sigan produciendo en nuestra región. Sin embargo, nos sentimos optimistas por la actitud asumida por la Organización de los Estados Americanos ante esta situación. La OEA ha asumido la difícil tarea de exigir que se cumplan los estándares requeridos para que las elecciones sean transparentes y sus resultados creíbles y, de no ser así, denunciarlo. Igualmente, celebramos los planteamientos formulados por los países que integran la CARICOM y por su Corte de Justicia del Caribe (CCJ).

Venezuela reitera que el artículo 23 de la Carta Democrática Interamericana establece que los Estados Miembros son los responsables de organizar, llevar a cabo y garantizar los procesos electorales libres y justos, lo que constituye un elemento fundamental de la democracia representativa, sin la cual consideramos es imposible alcanzar las metas de desarrollo, de derechos humanos y de seguridad a las que aspiramos.

No puedo dejar de señalar que las irregularidades denunciadas en Guyana nos recuerdan situaciones ocurridas en Venezuela en los últimos veinte años y que nuevamente la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro pretende repetir. Para esta parodia de elecciones convocadas en mi país para el día 6 de diciembre, no se va a actualizar el registro electoral permanente para incluir a los nuevos votantes y a aquellos que cambiaron de residencia. No podrán participar los principales líderes opositores a la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro ni de los partidos políticos democráticos. Se ha modificado la legislación electoral sin que la Asamblea Nacional haya sancionado ley alguna. Se han modificado las circunscripciones electorales y se han alterado los mecanismos de designación con la única intención de favorecer a la minoría que pretende usurpar el poder por los próximos cinco años. No continúo esta enumeración por respeto a las limitaciones de tiempo pero son situaciones harto conocidas.

Sí quisiera expresar la esperanza de que estas irregularidades electorales que se producen en Venezuela encuentren en todos los representantes que integran este Consejo Permanente una preocupación similar a la que ha sido expresada hoy. Venezuela requiere elecciones presidenciales que remienden el fraude electoral del año 2018 y elecciones parlamentarias que reflejen la voluntad del pueblo. ¡Qué bueno sería que tuviéramos una Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de Estados Americanos en las próximas elecciones y en todas las subsiguientes que se realicen en Venezuela!

Finalmente, señor Presidente, hacemos votos porque la situación que vive nuestro vecino, la República Cooperativa de Guyana, tenga una solución pronta y pacífica que garantice el acatamiento a la voluntad del pueblo guyanés que se empezó el día 2 de marzo.

Gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador.

Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra a la Delegación de los Estados Unidos, al Representante Brad Freden.

Tiene usted la palabra, estimado Delegado.

El REPRESENTANTE ALTERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS: Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this special meeting of the Permanent Council. We also commend the Secretary General for his principled and timely request for this meeting, and for his report today.

Let me begin by noting that the United States has long had high hopes for Guyana. We believe it can—and will—leave behind its history of political strife and come together for the benefit of its people. It was—and hopefully still is—poised to become a regional democratic leader and use its newfound resources to improve the welfare of its citizens.

Instead, we have witnessed over eighteen months of chaos, ever since the December 2018 no-confidence vote in the National Assembly which brought down the Granger administration. The no-confidence vote ushered in a period of political paralysis at a time that Guyanese leaders of all backgrounds could have come together to lay the foundation for a brighter, more prosperous future. We note that this period generally passed peacefully, and that all parties sought recourse within the Guyanese judicial system. Violence was minimal. We are grateful that disputes were kept in the courtroom and the media, and off the streets.

Periods of political, uncertainty are not uncommon in parliamentary democracies. Throughout 2019 and into this year, we remained optimistic that Guyana would resolve its political stalemate promptly and democratically. But then came the country’s March 2 elections and their aftermath, Mr. Chairman. International observers noted flagrant tabulation irregularities, and unanimously agreed that there was no credible result. The shared concern over these findings is consistent with our region’s collective commitment to uphold and defend the principles articulated in our Inter-American Democratic Charter.

Guyana’s Caribbean Community (CARICOM) partners agreed as well. A delegation of five Caribbean prime ministers sought to break the impasse in March, and even offered to send a recount mission, which President Granger himself supported. But this effort to have a transparent, internationally supervised recount was stymied in the Guyanese courts. Perhaps speaking for all of us, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley said it best after this initiative failed: “there were forces that clearly did not want to see votes recounted.” It also became clear to the international community that there were forces that repeatedly refused to accept the will of the people at the ballot box.

Eventually, the Guyanese courts mandated a recount, which both CARICOM and the Organization of American States (OAS) observed. We were pleased to support the OAS in this effort. However, Mr. Chairman, the International Republican Institute, which had observed the elections, was barred from entering the country. The Carter Center, with decades of experience and credibility observing elections in Guyana, was similarly barred. The reasons for these actions remain unclear.

Nevertheless, the recount proceeded, and CARICOM and the OAS concluded that the opposition had indeed won Guyana’s national elections. Guyana’s ruling coalition rejected this result, disputing how the votes were tabulated. The Guyana Election Commission’s (GECOM) Chief Elections Officer (CEO) submitted reports that baselessly disenfranchised at least a quarter of the electorate and discounted the recount numbers. More litigation ensued.

Finally, on July 8, over four months after the election, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) declared that the electoral report submitted by the GECOM CEO was null and void. The GECOM Chairperson ordered him to submit a final election report based on the recount numbers. But instead of acceding to the GECOM Chairperson, rulings of the CCJ and the international community, the CEO three times submitted a report that was not based on the internationally supervised recount, but on fictitious numbers.

As recently as July 11, the OAS had noted the CEO’s defiance of the GECOM Chairperson by submitting a final report which includes data compiled prior to the National Recount. The OAS has clearly stated there can be no justification for this action, and that the CEO acted in bad faith and contrary to the interest of democracy in Guyana. Mr. Chairman, we fully agree with the OAS’s conclusion: the only democratic solution for Guyana at this time is to respect the results of the national recount. This is fully in keeping with Guyana’s commitments under the Democratic Charter.

In democracies, leaders step aside when they are voted out of office. That speaks to the importance and strength of institutions, not individuals; and to the power of the people, not those who would usurp their power.

Senior U.S. officials, including the Secretary of State, have made numerous public statements about Guyana since the March elections. We stand with the Guyanese people. Their government must heed their will. Elections must be free, fair, credible, and transparent.

Mr. Chairman, Secretary Pompeo has stated time and again there would be consequences for individuals who seek to undermine democracy. And that is why on July 15 he announced visa restrictions on individuals who are responsible for, or complicit in, undermining democracy in Guyana. These could also include members of their families. Our action came after months of warnings and expressions of concern. We do not take it lightly. This measure is intended to send a clear message of the consequences of subverting democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that it is not lost on Guyana’s leaders how swift international support for our actions has been: The CARICOM Chair said the entire world knows a small group is trying to hijack Guyana’s elections. Canada has demanded a swift and transparent conclusion to the election process and hold accountable those who prevent it. Brazil has called on Guyana’s leader to respect the popular will. The United Kingdom has begun the process of imposing sanctions against culpable officials.

This is not an accident; there is no way to minimize how flagrant the actions of Guyana’s leaders have been. The United States has long said that we have no preference in favor of one or the other party, as long as it is selected through a free, fair, and credible electoral process. That is why the work of the OAS remains so important throughout our region.

It is not too late for Guyana, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary General. We call upon its leadership to honor the results of democratic elections and ask all sides to work together to develop new mechanisms for inclusive politics and governance. If stalemate continues, however, it will only be the Guyanese people who suffer.

A Partnership for National Unity—and its leaders—face a stark choice. Does the party want to be a leader in the Hemisphere? Does Guyana want to be a leader in the Hemisphere and an example of democracy? Or does it want to be an international pariah? Does Guyana want to have a functioning Executive and legislature so it can pass the laws it needs to encourage the development of its people? Or does it want to remain a country whose leaders cannot travel and are subject to sanctions? These are the choices facing Guyana today. Our meeting today reflects the severity of Guyana’s predicament, and we hope that Guyana makes the right choice.

Thank you very much.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias al Delegado Representante Alterno de los Estados Unidos.

Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra al Embajador de Chile, Hernán Salinas.

Embajador, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE CHILE: Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. En primer lugar, quiero agradecer la solicitud de convocatoria a esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente pedida por el señor Secretario General y también las presentaciones tan ilustrativas que se han efectuado, como la presencia de la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Guyana, Karen Cummings.

El Gobierno de Chile ha seguido con atención los acontecimientos políticos en Guyana, país con el cual nuestro país tiene lazos de amistad y cooperación de especial interés, como los que nos unen con todos los Estados Miembros de la Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM).

Como componente del conjunto de la democracia de este Continente, manifestamos nuestra preocupación por la demora en la entrega de los resultados de las elecciones en Guyana, habiendo ya transcurrido más de cuatro meses del acto electoral, el cual contó con la observación de CARICOM y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Creemos que dilatar aún más la finalización del proceso electoral constituye una amenaza a la estabilidad institucional y social de Guyana. Llamamos respetuosamente a todas las partes interesadas a respetar la vigencia de la democracia, el Estado de derecho y contribuir a una pronta conclusión del proceso electoral con estricto apego a las normas de la institucionalidad del país y de la Carta Democrática Interamericana.

Finalmente, quisiéramos apelar a que los actores regionales y subregionales involucrados a que continúen colaborando con las partes en Guyana a fin de facilitar, a la mayor brevedad posible, la solución del conflicto electoral existente.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador.

Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra al Embajador de Bolivia.

Embajador Jaime Aparicio, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE BOLIVIA: Gracias, Embajador Luis Cordero, y también lo felicito por asumir sus funciones en el Consejo Permanente y le ofrecemos toda la ayuda nuestra y de todos los países que están en este momento representados en el Consejo Permanente. Quiero agradecerle al Secretario General Luis Almagro por haber convocado a esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente sobre las elecciones en Guyana y las presentaciones que acabamos de oír, sobre todo el Informe del ex Primer Ministro de Jamaica, que ha sido contundente, ha sido muy claro y nos ha puesto al tanto, por segunda vez, de lo que está ocurriendo con esta elección. También gracias a la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores, a los representantes de la oposición y del gobierno en este asunto que nos ocupa hoy día.

Quiero también hacer un agradecimiento al rol que ha tenido el Departamento para la Cooperación y Observación Electoral en todo este acompañamiento que han hecho al ex Primer Ministro Golding, se ha demostrado nuevamente el rol efectivo que tiene la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) en la defensa de la democracia, en la vigilancia electoral y en decir las cosas como son para ayudar a que se respete la voluntad popular en nuestra región. Agradecemos a Francisco Guerrero y a Gerardo de Icaza por su profesionalidad y solvencia.

Una vez más la OEA ha demostrado lo importante que es tener un órgano de cooperación electoral porque, por segunda vez en los últimos meses, se han producido graves irregularidades y manipulaciones en las elecciones. Anteriormente, como recordarán, el 20 de octubre se produjo un fraude electoral en Bolivia que acabó con la renuncia y la fuga del expresidente. Ahora, nuevamente estamos entrando en un terreno muy difícil y, como se ha señalado acá, es inadmisible que después de cuatro meses no tengamos resultados y que existan fuertes indicios de manipulaciones a la integridad de la elección en Guyana.

Y sobre todo porque es una irregularidad que se da luego de un recuento que ha sido observado internacionalmente, como se ha dicho acá. Ha habido varios organismos –la OEA; la propia Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM); el Centro Carter; algunos partidos políticos del exterior han enviado también sus observadores– y está claro que ha habido problemas serios que deben remediarse y por tanto nosotros hacemos un llamado. Primero, manifestamos nuestra solidaridad con el pueblo guyanés pero, en segundo lugar, hacemos un llamado al gobierno para que coopere tanto con la CARICOM como con la OEA para una transición pacífica y democrática en Guyana. Creemos que esta va a ser la única forma, aunque se ha hecho ya un gran daño a la institucionalidad democrática del país. Es todavía tiempo de que se produzca esta transición pacífica y democrática, y hacemos un llamado al gobierno a realizarla.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Embajador Aparicio.

Procedo a darle la palabra al Embajador Carlos Játiva del Ecuador.

Embajador Játiva, tiene usted la palabra.

El REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DEL ECUADOR: Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Tratándose de la primera oportunidad en la que la Delegación del Ecuador interviene bajo su Presidencia, quiero saludarle y augurarle éxitos en el ejercicio de esta dignidad, así como felicitar la excelente conducción del Consejo Permanente por su antecesor, nuestro colega el Representante Permanente de Haití, Léon Charles.

Agradezco la convocatoria a esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente a solicitud del Secretario General para considerar la situación en Guyana. Mi Delegación encuentra graves y preocupantes las presentaciones hechas por el Jefe de Misión de Observación Electoral de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), el señor ex Primer Ministro de Jamaica, Bruce Golding, así como del Secretario General, Embajador Luis Almagro, como consecuencia de las elecciones generales habidas en la República Cooperativa de Guyana el pasado 2 de marzo. Igualmente hemos tomado nota de las declaraciones hechas por el ex Procurador General Anil Nandlall y del Candidato a Primer Ministro, señor Mark Phillips.

Llama la atención que hasta este momento, y a pesar de que han transcurrido ciento cuarentaiún días desde la realización de los comicios, no se disponga de resultados oficiales sobre este proceso que ha pasado ya por un ejercicio de recuento que fue aprobado por todas las partes interesadas. Es indispensable que se respete el pronunciamiento del pueblo guyanés expresado con espíritu patriótico y entusiasta en los comicios de marzo último. Esta fe en la democracia no puede ni debe ser traicionada.

Es por esto que el Ecuador, fundado en la Carta de la OEA y en la Carta Democrática Interamericana, pide a las fuerzas políticas guyanesas y en particular a las autoridades gubernamentales, incluidos la señora Canciller Karen Cummings y el señor Procurador General que participan en esta sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente, a acatar la voluntad popular emanada de las urnas y a proclamar finalmente los resultados de las mismas con base en el recuento de votos que ha sido observado por la Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM), la OEA y la Unión Europea (UE). Competirá iniciar el ya dilatado proceso de transición política a fin de asegurar la estabilidad, el Estado de derecho y la paz, así como preservar la democracia en Guyana.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias al Embajador Carlos Játiva del Ecuador.

Agradezco a las delegaciones por sus comentarios.

Ahora deseo preguntar a los expositores si tienen algún comentario final. Miro en pantalla a la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Guyana.

Excelentísima señora Karen Cummings, tiene usted la palabra.

EL PROCURADOR GENERAL DE GUYANA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary General; colleagues; excellencies.

The Government of Guyana recognizes the concern, and it shares the same concern as the members states of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Government is not in any manner or form involved with the conduct of elections in Guyana. Under our Constitution, which is the supreme law, the Guyana Elections Commission is truly an independent body, and they are the ones that conduct elections in Guyana. The Government has nothing to do with that.

We are, so, anxious to have this matter resolved. We have our support in the country more than half. We and our supporters believe we won the elections. We believe we have been doing very well in Guyana, and we just wish to say that there cannot be a peaceful transition because there has been no declaration of the results of the election. The Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) has not declared the elections, and it has not declared the winner. And all parties believe their one, we believe the one the Chief Election Officer (CEO) in fact in applying the rules of the recount order, which was a two-prong process: the count and then the credibility test that had to be applied to the recount. That is what caused the reduction in the votes, and this the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) set aside. In setting aside that, the CCJ said that this order cannot work, and you must go back to the original electoral machinery, and that is why the CEO had to go back to the March 2 declarations.

Now, excellencies, you have been hearing all these things. There is no way we could explain all of this to you today. What we wish to say is that that recount process brought about widespread corruption that had tainted the elections. When the ballot boxes were opened, all you had were ballots, but there were no statutory documents in those ballot boxes that enabled anyone to validate the presence of the ballots in the boxes. So that the issue there was not ballots being in the box only, but the circumstances attending how they got into the box.

And the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) commission, we thank them, but they themselves said it was not a recount, it was an audit, and there were no books in the boxes. They had 49 boxes in one area without a shred of statutory documents to help make a determination of who won the votes on those boxes.

So, it is a very difficult situation that GECOM is facing, all of us, and we are hoping that we reach that point where everybody is satisfied with the process, and as I said to you, we are happy that the matter is proceeding in due course of law rather than the civil unrest and demonstrations in the street. And our Government commits, and the President has been committed, from the beginning he has said he will abide by the determination and declaration of the Elections Commission. There has not been one yet, and we are just asking everyone to be patient. We have to be patient; we have supporters who cannot understand what is delaying this. Because everyone feels that they have won the election, and we are just saying that there has been no declaration, the question of transition has not arisen because no winner has been determined by the Guyana Elections Commission.

And there is no way we could resolve these matters; only a court could resolve these matters. Even when the CCJ vitiated their recount order, people still claim we did. That is where we are, and we thank you for this opportunity, for being here also. My sister will address you on that, but I believe that this is a very good opportunity for us to let people know that the Government is in no way the obstacle in what is happening in Guyana. We are ready, willing and able to have a resolution on this matter.

Thank you very much.

La MINISTRA DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: I am happy that we were able to be part of this meeting, and we hope that very soon this matter will be resolved. Keep Guyana in your prayers.

Thank you.

El PRESIDENTE: Gracias a la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Guyana por sus palabras.

Ahora procedemos a darle la palabra al señor Anil Nandlall.

Señor Nandlal, tiene usted la palabra.

El EX PROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA COOPERATIVA DE GUYANA: Permit me to thank Mr. Secretary General and all the distinguished members who spoke this afternoon on this matter.

I just want to address some remarks made again by the Attorney General. Again, he continues to spin a narrative that defies reality. The narrative that he is reciting is a narrative that is inconsistent with everything that every other person and every other organization has observed and spoke about and wrote about in relation to the Guyana elections. He just misrepresented completely the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), its purport and effect. He just misrepresented completely what transpired at the recount process. He just misrepresented completely what transpired in relation to the Guyana elections, specifically and generally.

And that is the narrative that the people of Guyana and the entire region have had to be confronted with and deal with on a daily basis: misrepresentations, lies and fabrications. All because their repeated attempts to rig the elections are being uncovered, discovered, and made public, and when they cannot get through with that, they keep running to the judiciary to seek assistance from the judiciary so that they can complete the perpetration of the fraud of the elections.

We are very grateful that the international community is standing with us and standing for democracy, and we continue to thank you for your support, and we continue to look forward for your support. The Organization of American States (OAS), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) region, the Commonwealth and all the organizations and the diplomatic community that have stood with us so far.

Thank you very much.

El PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Nandlall. Agradezco nuevamente a los expositores, así como a las delegaciones que tomaron la palabra durante la presente sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Permanente. Les recuerdo que las presentaciones y comentarios de las delegaciones se verán reflejadas de manera textual en el acta correspondiente a esta sesión extraordinaria.

No habiendo más asuntos por considerar, se levanta la sesión.

Buenas tardes.

[Se levanta la sesión a las 4:46 p.m.]

AC03708T01

CP44042T01

ISBN 978-0-8270-7231-2