Dear Editor,
According to press reports, ‘President Ali vowed that authorities would work to ascertain the motive behind the attack’.” We are going deep, broad and hard to the bottom of this,” “this attack bore all the hallmarks of terrorism. It was an attempt to sow fear and chaos, to destabilize, to create tension.”
I agree fully with the President’s modus operandi … “going deep, broad and hard to the bottom of this.” That is the crux of the matter; and it is precisely that approach that may prove to be most challenging given the complexities of what appears to be a unique intelligence-led investigation with an external and internal character.
Terrorism is by no means new to Guyana, be it homegrown or localized acts. During the 1962-1964 period, several terrorist acts were perpetrated by centrally-directed terrorist groups and individuals operating in the then British Guiana. The bombing of PPP HQ Freedom House and killing of Michael Forde; the blowing up of the Son Chapman boat killing several passengers on board in the Demerara River and the attempted dynamiting of the rice marketing T&HD bond at Water Street have since been established as terrorist acts that were externally instigated, financed by the CIA and executed by local operatives.
In 1976, eleven Guyanese passengers including five students traveling to Cuba were killed when two-time bombs planted by terrorists exploded on a Cuban aircraft off the coast of Barbados. A total of 73 passengers were killed.
Later, in the 1979-1980 period, the country was rocked by another wave of terrorist acts during the campaign waged by the Walter Rodney-led WPA against the Burnham dictatorship. Acts of terrorism were manifested in the burning down of the Ministry of National Mobilization, the stabbing to death of Catholic priest Father Darke and the assassination of Dr. Rodney in a car bomb explosion.
Still later, 2003-2008 marked a period of brutal killings of scores of innocent Guyanese including Minister Satyadeo Sawh during the rampage by a terrorist gang led by Rondell Rawlings aka ‘Fineman.’
Seventeen years later, Guyana has again experienced threats at sea from its North-Western neighbour, and bombings on land at a police outpost and a GPL substation; but the recent terrorist act referred to by the President and security forces raises a host of questions that impinges on our country’s national security
We were told that a man and accomplices, described as Spanish speaking nationals entered our country illegally on Sunday, October 26, ‘25. It appears that they were sent on a specific mission. What was the code name for their mission and who sent them we do not know.
Before leaving their port of origin, the group must have been briefed by their superiors that they were to disembark at a pre-determined location with a specific land mark situated at a quiet riverside village, on the East Bank of the Essequibo River.
It appears that the new arrivals were provided with locally garnered human intelligence identifying the Parkia koker as the ideal location for disembarkation on a Sunday morning knowing it would be suitable to do so around that time. Who were their home-based handlers we do not know.
The Spanish speaking nationals probably came by boat. What type of boat we don’t know. Were they escorted up to a point by a more professional and experienced crew in another vessel leaving them on their own with a map and strict navigational directions detailing where they should head in order to eventually arrive at the pre-determined location along the right bank of the Essequibo River? We do not know.
Further, there must have been locally-based ‘look outs’ awaiting the expected arrivals using agreed signals and cell phone contact to guide their compadres to the landing. Vehicular transportation must have been organized and waiting in order to transport the men on a mission to the city. Who were the local look-outs we do not know.
The question is, do the presence of locally-based ‘look outs’ indicate that members of cells of the overseas based ‘R’ Syndicato move freely amongst the Guyanese populace waiting to be activated? We do not know. But more troubling is the question whether they crossed the Demerara River using the Bharrat Jagdeo Demerara River bridge or did they cross the river by boat from Vreedenhoop to Georgetown; Or, did they not land at Parika, but travelled by sea from Parka to Georgetown? We do not know.
We were told that they had in their possession an explosive device. Had the device been planted onto that bridge, its activation would have been catastrophic, but alas, for reasons known only to the individuals, the bridge was not the target
The individuals must have been briefed before departing their home-base, that there was one specific target. They knew the exact location of the target. Who briefed them with that kind of intelligence and who provided them with the explosive device? We do not know. Was it an improvised devise or was it a factory-manufactured device? We do not know. Who gave them instructions on how to trigger the device, we do not know. However, we can assume that there must have been some training on how to transport and to activate such a dangerous and sensitive device across borders having regard to time and space.
For such a device to enter Guyana undetected raises serious questions in relation to border security, state security and national security.
Eleven and a half hours after arriving by boat at Parika, a suspect, later identified by CCTV cameras as one of the passengers, was seen approaching a Mobil gas station corner of Regent and King streets. He attempted to place a black garbage bag in a disposal bin near a pump station but was prevented from doing so by an alert attendant. His plan foiled, the suspect then opted to leave the bag at another location in the compound of the said Mobil gas station located at central Georgetown. At 7:24 p.m. a violent explosion occurred at the gas station.
The life of a child was brutally snuffed out and many were injured. People say many more lives would have been lost and a huge, difficult to control conflagration would have erupted had the device been planted next to the fuel pump as was originally planned. Utilization of US, Chinese, Cuban and Israeli intelligence and counter-terrorist experiences can prove helpful.
An attack on a Mobil gas station, symbolizes the ideological and political nature of the attack. Mobil represents a well-established American brand name associated with ExxonMobil. Assets at sea associated with Exxonmobil have been targeted recently by Venezuelan naval vessels. Guyanese soldiers have been shot at by Venezuelans while on border patrol.
The planting of an explosive device on the property of an established American company was by its very nature, an anti-American act. Secondly, it was aimed at the supplier of fuel, a source of controversy and energy which was intended to send a signal about the motive behind the attack.
That aside, the nature of the attack is even more serious; from a national security perspective, it was a violent act against a civilian target designed to psychologically impact an audience beyond the immediate target or victims of the attack. We are told that the attack was executed by Venezuelan nationals belonging to a group called ‘R’. Whether they acted on their own or were state sponsored for mainly political reasons we do not know.
In this particular matter, the proposition that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ must be rejected. On the contrary, it must be ‘one man’s terrorist is everyone’s terrorist.’ Irrespective of sponsorship.
Whether the ‘R’ Syndicato is a terrorist grouping or an insurgent organization should be of concern to us. Is the prime suspect, Daniel Alexander Ramirez Peodomo, telling the truth? Or is he selling a line given to him by his handlers should he be captured? We don’t know. The task ahead is to go “deep, broad and hard to the bottom of this,” “this attack bore all the hallmarks of terrorism.”