Dr Gopeesingh explains his "ethnic cleansing" position

Opposition MP Dr Tim Gopeesingh started a debate in Trinidad and Tobago about discrimination when he charged recently that the Manning government was engaged in "ethnic cleansing" at the Port of Spain General Hospital.

It coincided with a wider regional debate on the issue of immigration in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the immigration policy of Barbados. Guyana in particular expressed deep concern about the treatment of its nationals in Barbados, many of whom were arrested and deported.

Then an editorial in the Nation newspaper in Barbados raised an issue that generated a debate about ethnic discriminaton. The paper said one of the problems with Guyanese immigrants, and immigrants in general, is that Barbados must not allow its racial balances to be disturbed by immigration.

In a lengthy letter, published below, Gopeesingh outlines his views on the controversial issue:

The national and indeed, regional, communities of Trinidad and Tobago and Caricom respectively have been engulfed in a controversial debate over comments made in the past two weeks about ethnic cleansing allegedly taking place in some Caribbean territories, namely Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados.

On July 4, 2009, Sir Shridath Ramphal, the former Commonwealth Secretary General, was quoted in the Guyana newspapers, the Kaieteur News, as using the term to describe the immigration issues that Barbados is currently
experiencing.

In that case, Sir Shridath cited an editorial in the Barbados newspaper, “The Nation”, which noted that one of the problems with Guyanese immigrants, and immigrants in general is that Barbados must not allow its racial balances to be
disturbed by immigration.

Sir Shridath comments on The Nation Editorial is as follows:-

“This says that we must not allow ethnic racial elements in the immigration process to upset the racial balaance that was established in Barbados. What I am saying thst that there have been intimations of ethnic cleansing."

His comments reflect the necessity for Caricom as a body to effectively treat with the decades of post-Colonial racial and nationalistic divisiveness that has characterized member states, and thwarted their abilities to move forward as a cohesive unit.

In the Parliamentary debate of Friday, July 17, 2009, I made certain comments and I quote from Hansard: "I am raising a very important point. I am being told, some may not like it and I do not know whether it is true, that there has been an issue of ethnic cleansingh at the Port of Spain Hospital as far as the doctors are concerned. I understand that most of the East Indian Doctors have had to leave Port of Spain Hospital."

The immediate response of Prime Minister Patrick Manning was to condemn my comments. "I would have objected also, because evidence or no eveidence, that kind of talk in a Parliament like this does us no good. It sounded like the kind of talk you would expect from a guttersnipe."

I wish to respond concisely and comprehensively to the debate that my comments have spurred in the country over the issues of racial and political discrimination being practised by the Government of the day.

Firstly, let me state once more that I categorically stand by my comments in Parliament and I continue to insist that my claims about the senior doctors being forced out of the system because of their perceived political bias are true and provable.

I later gave the names of over 20 senior doctors who have been forced or frustrated out of the system due to outright discrimination when called on to prove my claims. I also have in my possession copies of several letters written by the doctors to the Medical Chief of Staff and Administration with their grievances over a prolonged period of time.

These doctors in the main have said publicly that they have no knowledge of ‘ethnic cleansing’ but many have admitted that they were frustrated out of the system. Some have said, though, that racial discrimination was indeed a factor that contributed to their early departure at the hospitals.

They have their reasons for not saying publicly what they have told me privately, and to speak out publicly on a matter of such grave importance or to be silent about it is their prerogative.

In the same vein, it is my prerogative and duty to speak out as an MP about valid claims in the country which threaten to jeopardize the legal framework of democracy that we depend on for just and equal treatment for all citizens.

In the wake of these developments, the editorials of all three major dailies, and many of the country’s key columnists have proffered that I was wrong to raise the issue of discrimination at the POSGH of senior local doctors by using the term ‘ethnic cleansing.’

Further, these purveyors of public opinion have, in some instances, imitated the stance of Prime Minister Patrick Manning and the PNM MPs in Parliament, and called on me to withdraw and apologise for my comments on ‘ethnic cleansing’, even though they have conceded that there may be validity in my claims.

I again state categorically that I stand by my comments. But I also recognize that the term ethnic cleansing is indeed a strong term and many people would have therefore become wary about its use to describe such a phenomenon.

In fact, the chief argument of those who are calling on me to withdraw and apologise for my comments is that I misused the term ethnic cleansing, since it connotes mass genocide of a specific race of people in a country.

They have relied chiefly on the standard dictionary definitions, and to a lesser extent, the United Nations definition, of ‘ethnic cleansing’, which note that in its ultimate form, ethnic cleansing refers to the “systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.”

I wish to point out that while that definition may be standard for limited reference of the social and political phenomenon that is ethnic cleansing, it is in no way the only definition. In fact, my own research on this topic shows that the term ethnic cleansing was indeed coined just only in 1992, to describe the war atrocities in Bosnia/Sarajevo, and therefore, it remains an evolving definition.

One of the persons consider to be an expert in this field is the American sociologist Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, who is based in Boston. In his book titled: Thnic Cleansing he noted that:

"Despite its recurrence, ethnic cleansing nonetheless defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these."

In that internationally acclaimed book, Mr. Bell-Fialkoff also explains the history of ethnic cleansing, tracing it from antiquity to the present and showing how, in different times and places, the most varied criteria have been used to isolate and destroy previously accepted or even completely unnoticed groups.

"Cleansing", he shows, has been based on race, gender, class, sexual preference, and religion and has been a constant evil in world history.

In 1933, the Nazis introduced the Physician’s Law in Germany prohibiting intake of Jewish Students into Medical Schools. Jewish Doctors could have attended only to Jews, no one else. Jews were banned from being Journalists, becoming editors or owning newspapers.

These were silent, slow insidious programmes and policies inflicted upon a people by a regime designed to oppress. This therefore, is the general definition of the term I used to admittedly much controversy recently.

It is noteworthy too, that many people, including prominent attorney at law Anand Ramlogan and the Maha Sabha have issued there own calls for probes into claims that there is and has been discrimination against one group of people in this country in the public service sector, namely, Indo-Trinidadians.

Further, I find it disturbing to say the least that the Prime Minister would suggest that the issue of Government’s deliberate racially divisive policy ought to be swept under the carpet and not be brought into the Parliamentary chamber for discussion.

I felt convinced and compelled to expose closeted issues to the light of scrutiny and intellectual enquiry and only by doing so will there be a dissipation of antagonism, apprehension and resentment clearly advancing towards the evolution of a society with social justice, equality and democratic participation by all, free from discrimination.

The Prime Minister must remember that it is HIS Government that is being accused on various fronts of the atrocity of institutionalised racial discrimination and therefore, the onus is on HIM to explain to the public why his Government has been, and continues to be, accused of violating the equal rights of citizens of this country.

The issue of race relations in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious community and a plural society like ours is always a controversial, sensitive one, but it ought not be ignored from public discussion especially when it is a valid issue that warrants public attention.

It was hard for me to decide finally to vent this issue publicly, but I did because I felt it was time that the public realise that the PNM Government, under Patrick Manning, is going down a dangerous road of subverting the Constitutional rights and guarantees of equality of all citizens for its political purposes.

I also want to make it very clear that such discussions, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, have every right to be vented in Parliament, since that is the sacred hall where issues of national importance are debated.

I have no regrets about talking about the issue in Parliament; in fact, I consider that I would be shirking my responsibility to the national community and my duty as an MP to not raise the issue in such a forum.

I recognise, however, that there were major risks for me as a politician raising such a sensitive issue, chief among them being the perception, fuelled by the cheap politicking of the Patrick Manning regime, that I was deliberately making racially divisive statements for political purposes.

There could also arise the misconception that I myself may harbour racial preferences. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish to let the public know that neither myself, nor my party, will ever engage in any racially divisive policies, nor will we ever condone them.

I will and am willing to raise the issue of racial discrimination for any group targeted in this country, be they African, Syrian, Indian or Chinese.

I wish to categorically state too that I will never be part of any Government or political party that shows any tendency to racial preference, as I am a firm believer in equality and fairplay for all citizens of this country. I will take up the cause of any group which asks me to do so for them, on valid grounds.

I acknowledge that this is a time when any perceived divisive comment is the last thing T&T needs as a country and as a people.

If ever there was a time in our nation’s history where we need unity to solve the devastating problems that threaten our existence as a country - a financial crisis, mass impending unemployment, corruption in the Government, a chronic healthcare crisis and crime in its worst forms - it is now.

These problems are not for Indians, Africans or Chinese people, they confront all of us and it is in this vein we should respond.

I therefore ask that the public understand the context in which my comments were made and recognise that I made them in a valid attempt to address the urgent fundamental question of race relations, distributive justice, cultural expressions, economic dominance, discriminatory employment practices, definition of national interest, national integration and the role of the state in our plural society.

My careers as a senior lecturer, UWI School of Medicine, a medical practitioner for 35 years and a politician have been based on improving the quality of life for all citizens of this country, and improving race relations, not exacerbating them.

I therefore call on the country to join the UNC’s call for valid investigations by the Equal Opportunities Commission into all allegations of discrimination made, and after, to engage in proper debate on the race issues that confront us and threaten to stagnate us as a people.

After all, to quote U.S. President Barack Obama, from his book the Audacity of Hope: "If we aren’t willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices in order to realise them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all."

It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience.

We must recognise that by continued dialogue and interplay of ideas and analysis would we consensually arrive on social, political and cultural imperatives for the full development of our people and the Nation State.

Dr Tim Gopeesingh | MP, Caroni East