10 September 2014

Dear Sir,

In reading the most recent release of the so called “Nine Colonels” three words come to mind. They are inconsistency, insincerity, and insensitivity. Each will be addressed accordingly.

The headline on August 25, 2014 in The Royal Gazette read, “Former Regiment CO’s: Let Dunkley do his job’.” The nine former Colonels then went on to support the Premier for lengthening the process to eliminate conscription and criticised the Opposition Shadow Minister for imploring the Premier to act expeditiously.

In doing so the group exposed itself as inconsistent. This despite assurances from the spokesman who said: “We have tried to do that in a neutral, non-confrontational and respectful way and we believe most of those for whom our message was intended have understood and appreciated that.”

Really? Tried to be neutral? Why then did the nine not criticise then Senator Dunkley when he continuously criticised the then PLP Government for reneging on their on its promise to end conscription. Why no press release when the then Sen Dunkley stated in the Senate, as reported on November 25, 2011 in this newspaper, “Conscript is past its sell-by date.”. Why not criticise him for not letting the PLP do their job?”

That deafening silence from these former Colonels exposes their inconsistency and reveals their true colours are as it relates to which political party they support and why. How can they talk about being neutral out of one side of their mouth and out of the other criticise the Opposition for using this issue to get votes. Why did they not interpret then Sen Dunkley’s most vociferous support of Bermudians Against the Draft as an attempt to get votes, especially considering we were heading into an election.

The second word which comes to mind is insincerity. Of course they support the Premier’s “plan” because he is doing exactly what they want him to do. In essence his plan is their plan. They are well aware that conscription is not being phased out but rather the process is being dragged out unnecessarily and they all know why.

And to suggest that conscription cannot be removed overnight, or at the blink of an eye, is most disingenuous. At no time have we ever suggested it be dealt with in such a manner, although it could have been and Bermuda would have been a much better place. Yet there is a tremendous difference being doing something overnight and not doing anything at all for an incredible 20 months. Then to say the phasing out process will not begin for another 16 months adds insult to injury.

So three years to begin the process when it should have been completed at least by that time insults the intelligence of the Bermudian public. This means six years in total causing many people to be suspicious. To believe that something is just not right and for good reason.

Now to put this ridiculously long process in perspective, consider that in 1992 the South African Defence Force, immediately after apartheid was dismantled, began to move from conscription to volunteerism. The entire process took place in just three years and this was an army of 78,000 strong. And it was in a country which had serious racial problems and had been denied democracy for over 50 years. Yet they were able to make the transition in just three years and here we are in a country with a much smaller army with far less relevance and we are talking about a six-year process. Not acceptable!

But the former officers, who come up with every reason imaginable as to why volunteerism cannot work support the Premier’s plan. Perhaps it’s because what resonates most with them is the Premier’s recent condescending, dictatorial, and dismissive approach to this issue. This corresponds with the barracks mentality at Warwick Camp where, according to the Shadow Minister Mr Roban, “orders are barked out and obeyed with deafening silence”.

It would appear this is what is expected of both the Opposition and the anti-draft movement, according to a statement continuously released either by the Premier or on his behalf which is as follows: “This change will take time, money, and planning and no amount of planning will make it happen any sooner.”

So now the Premier feels he can predetermine the outcome of any action as he is in charge. Just like when he declared Jetgate, Deadgate and we all know how that turned out. And again, for emphasis, this is the same person who repeatedly implored the PLP when in Government to deal with the issue expeditiously.

Finally, we deal with the insensitivity of the nine, and the Premier, regarding blatant human rights violations and the inevitable abuses. For at no time will you either hear or read any statement from them acknowledging the inarguable, the indisputable fact that conscription violates several fundamental human rights.

This is particularly disturbing considering that they, more than anyone else, are acutely aware of the immense suffering inflicted by this corrupt, oppressive institution upon an innumerable amount of young men and their parents over the past 49 years.

That is most reprehensible and explains why the nine, along with the Premier, go to such great lengths trying to deflect attention from the core issue which is human rights violations. As a consequence the emphasis is instead placed on national security, which is nothing but a red herring. A red herring of course is something that draws attention away from the central issue.

The reason for this strategy is quite obvious. By refusing to even acknowledge human rights it absolves the Premier of the responsibility to act expeditiously on this issue. We cannot allow this most important human rights issue to be hijacked by those who are willing to be so cold and callous to the plight of young men forced by law into an institution which can literally trample upon their most basic human rights.

Conscription is wrong and should be abolished now to ensure no more young are victimised any more. Please don’t talk about national security within the context of a system which has no place in a democracy.

LARRY MARSHALL SR

Bermudians Against the Draft