At the Statutory Meeting of the Dialogue held on 15 February 1999 a number of unpleasant and unnecessary exchanges took place between the Parties. An extract of the transcript of that Meeting which contains the essence of the problem has already been published. That transcript shows that Dr. Luncheon, the Leader of the Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/Civic) Dialogue Team remarked among other things that, “the PNC is not the PPP/Civic’s equal” and that he does not recognise that when he speaks to Mr. Carberry, (Leader of the Peoples National Congress (PNC) Dialogue Team) in the Dialogue process that they are speaking as equals.
At the Meeting between Mrs. Janet Jagan, representing the PPP/Civic and Mr. Hugh Desmond Hoyte representing the PNC, which took place on 1 March 1999, Mr. Hoyte insisted that before the dialogue could be resumed the PNC required Dr. Luncheon to withdraw his remarks and make a public apology. He contended that there was no basis for continued discussion unless the parties in dialogue were negotiating as equals. Mrs. Jagan responded among other things, that Dr. Luncheon was speaking about equality in terms of government and opposition and not in personal terms.
One of the proposals made for resolving the impasse, was that since the remarks complained of were made at the Dialogue it may be appropriate if a suitable apology and withdrawal of the remarks complained of be made at a reconvened meeting of the dialogue where the issue of a suitable withdrawal and apology be the first item of business. Mr. Hoyte found this proposal unacceptable. He contended that Dr. Luncheon’s statement relating to inequality was in the public domain and that it was therefore appropriate that any withdrawal and apology be in the public domain as well.
After meeting with Mr. Hoyte, the PNC has indicated that it is prepared to accept a withdrawal of the statements complained of at a resumed Meeting of the Dialogue. The PNC insists however, that a draft text of the proposed statement by Dr. Luncheon be submitted to them and agreed prior to the meeting so as to avoid a rancourous and unproductive meeting.
After separate meetings with the Leaders of the respective dialogue teams and with Mrs. Jagan, the PPP/Civic’s principal representative and Mr. Hoyte the PNC’s Leader, a mutually acceptable form of words has not been agreed.
The PPP/Civic and the PNC continue to assert that they are committed to the Inter-Party Political Dialogue. They have both accepted in principle that the parameters, guidelines and modalities for the further conduct of the dialogue must be clearly and precisely defined. They also accept that without prejudice to continuing discussion on and early resolution of the issues identified for discussion and resolution, the content of the dialogue needs to be expanded to address broader national issues.
The Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community at its Tenth Inter-Sessional Meeting held in Paramaribo on 4 and 5 March 1999, urged the CARICOM Facilitator to continue his efforts at Inter-Party Dialogue. Appropriate arrangements have been set in train to enable him to do so. However, in the absence of agreement between the parties the Dialogue process remains deadlocked.
In consequence, I have referred this impasse to the Chairman of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community with my request that he consider and implement what further measures may be necessary to ensure the continued process of dialogue and reform.
Office of the CARICOM Facilitator
19 March 1999
