Obviously, several questions immediately arise, foremost among them being: what will be the institutional nature of this new beast, what is the future of the OAS and what does this mean for US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean? In the best traditions of diplomacy, both the OAS Secretary General and the US State Department have been quick to welcome the announcement, holding to the logic that anything serving to strengthen regional integration, dialogue and cooperation must be a good move, whilst avoiding the more troublesome questions regarding the apparent realignment of the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean.
It is too soon, however, to pronounce definitively on this dramatic step and, at this point, there are perhaps more questions than answers concerning what exactly was decided in Cancún and what will transpire between now and the next summit in 2011 in Caracas, when the new body is supposedly to come into being.
There is though another issue arising from Cancún that may get lost in the resulting flurry of analysis and which we think it is worthy of comment – Argentina’s objection to the beginning of drilling by a British oil exploration company in waters off the Falkland Islands (or the Islas Malvinas if one is inclined towards the Argentine position on the disputed sovereignty of the islands).
According to the BBC, the region’s leaders “unanimously backed” Argentina’s claims of sovereignty over the Falklands and “condemned” the unilateral oil drilling activities. Indeed, a summit communiqué expressed support for the UN process which precludes unilateral actions that might undermine a negotiated solution to the dispute. In addition, a declaration on the “Malvinas Question” reaffirmed the summit’s “backing for Argentina’s legitimate rights in its sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom” and stated the regional interest in the two governments “renewing negotiations in order to find in the shortest time possible a just, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute.”
Before the summit, President Chávez had, characteristically, already pronounced on the matter, going so far as to shout at Queen Elizabeth II over the airwaves and across the ocean, demanding that she return the Falklands to Argentina. AFP quoted Mr Chávez as saying on his weekly TV and radio programme ‘Aló Presidente,’ “Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I’m talking to you… the time for empires is over, haven’t you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine People.” Even if the Queen had been listening, she was unlikely to have told Mr Chávez to shut up as King Juan Carlos of Spain famously did at another summit in 2007.
Humour aside, it is of course very interesting, if not hugely ironic, that Mr Chávez should be taking such a combative position on the Argentine claim to the Falklands, even as Venezuela continues with its spurious claim to our Essequibo region and its efforts to block our legitimate right to realize the full economic potential of Essequibo.
Of course, the British have military might to back up their diplomacy and their economic activities in the Falklands. We, however, do not have the luxury of a big stick and can only stand up to bullying on our frontiers with agile and robust diplomacy.
It is therefore even more interesting that Guyana should have been party to a unanimous statement reaffirming Argentina’s “legitimate rights,” a term that rather suggests pre-judgment of a complex historical and legal territorial dispute. More pertinently, we would do well to recall, notwithstanding whatever anti-imperial sentiments that might exist, that during the 1982 Falklands War, Guyana refused to support the aggressor, Argentina, and supported UK arguments based on the principles of non-intervention and the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes. The implications then for our own border controversy with Venezuela were very clear.
In the present circumstances, we sincerely hope that we have not ceded any diplomatic ground in the interest of some tenuous notion of regional solidarity. In this respect, it would be enlightening to hear more from official sources about the justification for our apparent support for Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falklands and how all this squares with our strategy to preserve our own sovereignty and territorial integrity.
