By Percy C. Hintzen
Percy C. Hintzen is a Guyanese sociologist specializing in postcolonial political economy. He is currently Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley and a former Professor in the Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies at Florida International University. At Berkeley he served as Director of the Center for African Studies, Co-Director of the Multi Campus Research Group on Africa, Chair of African American Studies, Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, and Acting Director of the Center for Race and Gender. He is a former President of the Caribbean Studies Association
The phrase “past is prologue” serves as a warning that we must look to earlier events in history to predict what is soon to occur. On September 5th this year, the Government of Guyana announced that it has agreed to accept six Cuban and Afghan “third country national” deportees from the United Sates. Recently, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled the practice to be “unlawful”. Many immigrant deportees from the United States are not “undocumented.” Included among them are permanent residents, students, and holders of work permits. Some enjoyed Temporary Protected Status (TPS) because turmoil and instability in their countries of origin would expose them to harm, and even death, should they be forced to return. This protection has now been revoked for immigrants from 13 selected countries including Afghanistan, Haiti, and Venezuela. Even naturalized citizens are now being targeted for deportation. Most of the deportees, like the six who were accepted by Guyana, have no criminal record. Consistently, courts in the United States have found many elements of the campaign of mass deportation, including the sending of deportees to “third countries,” to be flagrant violations of U.S. law. In the wake of a judge’s ruling, deportations of third country nationals were halted. They were temporarily resumed pending a decision by the Supreme Court on a challenge mounted by the U.S. government. For the Guyanese government, however, “good relations” with the Trump administration supersedes any consideration of legality and complicity.
There are also economic implications that come with the government’s decision to accept these third country nationals since it provides implicit support for U.S. policies and practices of mass deportation. Guyana is heavily dependent on remittances from 450,000-550,000 of its native-born population (approximately 36-39 percent) who live overseas. Over 300,000 of them reside in the United States. The “official” figures for remittances that they send home is in excess of U.S.$600 million annually. This does not include the value of their “in kind” and “unofficial” transfers, which are quite significant. Unlike oil extraction, there are no conditions attached to their remittances; no need for the accrual of debt; no need to satisfy the demands of a powerful oil plutocracy and the equally powerful “foreign direct investors” now rushing in to benefit from the country’s supposed “good fortune”; and no need to accede to the conditions of a colonizing power. So, one would think that the PPP administration would pay at least some attention to these remittances and to the well-being of the immigrants who send them.
Since the “Castro revolution” of 1959, Cuban refugees have enjoyed, until now, the highly protected status historically accorded to refugees fleeing “communism”. They were provided with enormous financial, political, and social support after they arrived and a quick path to U.S. citizenship. They used this to garner considerable influence over domestic politics and U.S. international policy, turning Florida into a bastion of right-wing politics and a reliable supporter of the Republican Party. Despite all of this, the Cuban American community has been unable to protect their immigrants from the current campaign of mass deportation. Immigrants from Afghanistan, many of whom have worked with and supported the United States during its invasion of their country, enjoyed a similar privileged status as refugees. This was until the Trump administration reneged on guarantees of security and protection for them and their families that came with relocation to the United States. Their protected status was revoked, leaving them with the choice either of deportation as “third country nationals” or of returning to Afghanistan to face certain retaliatory violence (including death, physical harm, and torture), economic hardship and social opprobrium. This underscores the severe vulnerability facing the hundreds of thousands of Guyanese immigrants who have never enjoyed the guarantees, commitments, and protections provided to Cubans and Afghans.
Rather than conceding to American requests (demands?) for accepting third country deportees, the interests of Guyana and its citizens may be best served by a government that uses its “good relations” with the United States to ensure that the rights of Guyanese nationals are protected and that their needs are met, even when they reside overseas. These are the paramount functions of government. President Irfaan Ali has asserted that Washington does not seek to exert “force or dominance” over Guyana. The U.S. Ambassador to Guyana, Nicole Theriot, has described the partnership between the two countries as “50-50… between equals.” If this is the case, then the Guyana Government should have absolutely no problem insisting that the rights of its citizens residing in the U.S. are not violated. In turn, the United States should have no problem providing iron-clad guarantees that it will abide by its own laws in its treatment of Guyanese immigrants, documented or not. But, as the Guyanese saying goes, “mouthar and guitar are two different things!”
The targeting of immigrants from the Global South has been a central feature of Donald Trump’s political campaigns. It is what got him elected. His administration has unleashed an enormously expanded, massively funded, and highly militarized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and an empowered border police to hunt down immigrants in a brutal, and in many respects, illegal campaign of mass deportation. Those who are not immediately deported are housed in detention centers that employ deliberate cruelty designed to force them to “self deport”. This is occurring as arrests of immigrants have soared to over 50,000 every month. As a result, the need for many more detention centers has increased significantly. Public scrutiny, political opposition, and rulings by the U.S. courts have brought to light violations of human rights occurring in these centers and have exposed the reality that deportees are being denied due process, which is their constitutional right. Construction of the centers have been met with considerable and near universal opposition. One in the Florida Everglades has even been forced to close. This is what is driving efforts by the Trump administration to locate deportees in places like Guyana as “third country nationals.” Acceptance of them makes the government complicit in the flagrant violations of U.S. and International Law.
The United States has had a sordid history of exporting its gross violations of human rights and international law to escape scrutiny and the jurisdiction of its courts. In the 1990s it established a covert program of “extraordinary rendition” that was significantly expanded after the al-Qaida attack on its territory on September 11th of that year. Aimed at flouting domestic and international law, “terror suspects” were illegally abducted and transferred to secret CIA “black sites” located in compliant countries where they were tortured. The transfer of deportees to third countries is cut from the same cloth.
As it turns out, Guyana’s existing legal framework and its history of treatment of deportees render the country ideal as a location for detention centers. On September 26, 2002, the Guyana government passed a Prevention of Crimes (Amendment) Act (PCAA) legislated at a time when the country was already declared to be in violation of international Human Rights laws, statutes, and conventions including the U.N. Convention against Torture because of its treatment of Guyanese deported from the United States. Amnesty International described the Act in this manner:
The Act provides for “orders” to be issued by the executive (Minister for Home Affairs) subjecting a person who “may reasonably be regarded as constituting a threat to public order or public safety” (and who is also a deportee) to a wide variety of restrictions. Amnesty International is concerned that the PCAA violates fundamental human rights and risks facilitating further human rights violations.
An opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated June 18, 2008 (Ali vs. Mukasey) detaileda pattern of abuses against deportees by the Guyana government:
the record shows that the Guyana Police Force, which has been “pressured to monitor the whereabouts and activities of deportees on a regular basis,” has initiated a policy of intercepting deportees at the airport, resulting in interceptions that “include intensive interrogations involving severe physical abuse, arbitrary detentions and extra-judicial killings.” The record also includes evidence that the police and police-connected vigilantes have taken violent action against supposed criminals, including criminal deportees. (page 24)
It is to be noted here that the Trump administration has deemed deportees to be “criminal” by virtue of their undocumented status, rendering them “reasonably regarded as constituting a threat to public order and public safety” and all that this entails.
In the wake of well-documented practices of surveillance torture, intimidation, and extra-judicial killings of deportees, and facing international repudiation including from the U.S., the Government of Guyana revised and reformulated its policies and practices regarding its treatment of deportees. But what if the Trump Administration requests (demands?) that Guyana accepts significantly more “third country nationals” and place them in detention centers?
Guyana already has a history of accommodating persons from the United States for the purpose of escaping public and legal scrutiny and American jurisdiction. Though for significantly different reasons, in 1974, Jim Jones, the white American founder of a Christian cult practicing what he termed apostolic socialism, used his ties to leading Democratic Party officials, both elected and unelected, and their letters of support to secure the approval of the Burnham Government to relocate his People’s Temple to Guyana. Some five decades later, this time it is the United States Government that is seeking sanctuary from the jurisdiction of its own courts and from public and political scrutiny. And the concessions afforded to the People’s Temple are ideally suited for location of detention centers in Guyana. Jones was exempted from many of the laws and regulations ofGuyana and enjoyed considerable privileges not afforded to the average citizen. His temple was shielded from public scrutiny and public knowledge by its relatively secluded location in Region 1. These came with tragic results. On November 18th, 1978, nine hundred and eighteen of Jim Jones’ overwhelmingly Black American followers were coerced and pressured into the largest episode of mass suicide in the modern history of the world. This was after significant practices of abuse, coercion, and corruption were about to be revealed by an American Congressman whose assassination by Temple leaders precipitated the mass suicide. And of course, there is always the financial argument. Over 90% of detainees in the United States are held in taxpayer-funded privately run detention centers, which are paid billions in government contracts. Like oil extraction, these centers would give a significant boost to Guyana’s touted GDP “growth” while providing enormous opportunities for the Guyanese billionaire class who benefit from such contracts. Not a hard sell.
There is a profound irony in the Guyana government’s claim that Cuban deportees were accommodated because of their “skills” when viewed in the wake of its earlier (forced?) compliance with demands made by the United States, which led the Cuban government to withdraw its medical personnel from the country— until we factor oil and the recent Venezuelan experience into the equation. In August this year, President Trump demanded and secured a 55% ownership share and total control of Venezuelan oil reserves as well as direct control of all the country’s export revenues. This is the price to be paid for non-compliance. So, what will the government do when the inevitable demand for location of U.S. detention centers in Guyana is made? Might the past be prologue?
Discussion