Dear Editor,
The Venezuelan border controversy recedes temporarily from threatening escalating territory. I believed it was handled well, when all angles are examined.
Guyanese leaders had choices: ignore, silence, retreat, rollover, or stand ground. Wisely, the latter course was decided upon quickly, and was manifested in calibrated language, unambiguous signals, and coherent coordination with those interested parties (and international players) that matter. The result is that the high-wire, high-stakes sabre rattling has given way to de-escalation through scabbarding of the provocative and reducing the buildup of belligerence.
I think that the Commander-in-Chief performed outstandingly under severe duress. He marshalled allies; he managed the rhetoric; he readied assets; and he operated within a solidly defined framework. He knew when to raise the bar, and at what increments, was careful on how he presented this country’s case, and what messages had to be delivered. I say well done!
Even as I recognise the efforts of the President and his team, I regret that the opposition did not see it fit to rise to the grave challenge to this nation. I would have preferred a more robust interest and distinctive presence; more zeal in supporting, and a ringing endorsement of the official postures embraced. There is no need to wait, to be consulted, to be invited. This is all there is in the situation: there is danger ahead, therefore, all hands on deck. I feel that the opposition lost some face and failed during a dangerous moment.
In closing, I re-emphasise that border controversies, racial division, political disaffection, and social detestation are all disturbing issues that will not be reduced to the barrenness of the inconsequential, and will not fade away satisfactorily if not addressed forthrightly and implacably. Only in this way will there be a convergence of consensus paving the way to unflagging commitment to set these matters right.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
