Dear Editor,
What has been grating on me is that amidst the obvious and welcome outpourings of patriotism on the Venezuela issue, the political partisanship, cavalier misinformation, flying fast and loose with facts and truth avoidance are still rampant in the analyses. There is shocking lack of specificity and missing factual underpinnings on key aspects of this controversy. What’s the harsh truth about all of this brouhaha? It is unlikely to amount to anything. Maduro’s regime is playing the Essequibo controversy for internal political gain, given that it is likely going to lose the upcoming December legislative elections and Maduro himself faces a recall election next year especially if the Venezuelan opposition wins the legislature. Venezuela is uninterested in the judicial solution proposed by Guyana.
The other angle raised by Professor Justice Pollard and endorsed by Solomon Sharma where the UN Secretary General invokes Article 99 to refer the matter to the Security Council is not realistic. Article 99 has been invoked eleven times, thrice formally by the SG and on eight other occasions after the matter was already raised by the Security Council. It has been used in cases of warfare and bloodshed. In fact, the Security Council has rarely used its power to refer matters to the ICJ for advisory opinions and in the few instances it did so, it never did it for an inter-state matter. It is unlikely it will happen when the region’s geopolitical master, the USA, has historically taken a neutral position, or as Wesley Kirton calls it ‘strategic ambiguity’, on the controversy. As it stands, the US benefits if both countries are in this perpetual logjam and dependent on US authority as a buffer. The US may stand to gain from reopened trade with Venezuela if the pro-US Venezuelan opposition wins power there. Guyana has massive oil resources to offer (especially with new oil find). It makes no sense economically for the US to take sides as it stands to benefit from both sides. Because of this, the US will maintain its strategic ambiguity and it will be absolutely right in doing so for the benefit of its people.
The rank conclusion: we are stuck, notwithstanding all the running around touting a judicial solution. How does Guyana protect itself? By playing resource geopolitics and by become a democratic powerhouse. We have already started the process with the former by bringing major US and Chinese oil interests into our sphere in the form of Exxon Mobil and a subsidiary of China National Offshore Oil Corporation. That endeavour has to be expanded. That alone will be a formidable check on Venezuela. Thus, how this country geopolitically aligns and positions its resources will have a critical impact on the unfolding of this Venezuela controversy and its own self-preservation. On the democracy angle, if Guyana sinks into any kind of dictatorship and the democratic pro-US Venezuelan opposition rises to power, the equation will radically change to the benefit of Venezuela. Make no mistake, the Venezuelan opposition is no less dogmatic about the Essequibo controversy than the present Venezuelan government. It so happens the region’s bulldog, the USA, favours democracy over authoritarianism. Small states with humongous valuable resources toying with despotism are literally asking for it from superpowers hungry for resources. They will be carved up without knowing it. Being democratic offers the greatest protection in this world and particularly in the mighty USA’s backyard to small states with major resources facing territorial claims. This is a new kind of resource curse that oil manifests for Guyana. It makes us more susceptible to great power manipulation and we truly have to build phalanxes to emerge from those decisions largely unscathed or territorially intact. An unassailable democratic tradition is one such vital foundation.
We are a pawn in a game beyond us. Once oil entered the picture, our future, primarily on the geopolitical front, is now one that will be decided by superpowers rather than by us. Our inherent weaknesses, led by racial ruptures and the willingness of ethno-power to embrace oppressive and despotic means to maintain ethno-power could sink us all in this new paradigm. As stated, oil has raised the stakes considerably in this country and any lack of strategic awareness or tactical nous in carefully considering the full ramifications for this country could be fatal to our future. A one party state under the mask of unity government is not the answer. There are better democratic avenues to wander down than this pathetic absurdity being peddled by the government as a grand panacea. I have lambasted this government for the early acts of dictatorship it took. When you are a helpless country incapable of defending yourself or of determining your geopolitical future, you don’t want to be the autocratic pariah when compared to a neighbour which is claiming five-eighths of your land. Strong non-corrupt democracies without ideological fixations will hardly be abandoned or allowed to be victimised by the powers that run the world, no matter how inconsequential they are. The undisputed heavyweight of these parts has a long history of paying attention to these things. We have to make the solution.
Suriname’s contention that the New River matter will be raised again must be examined closely. Is this Suriname acting alone or is there Venezuelan influence at play here? It seems convenient that this would emerge in the heat of the recent Venezuelan aggression to effectively mount two claims on opposing borders to geospatially squeeze Guyana. Suriname is using the same gambit Venezuela has used since 1962. Give resource concessions to major countries which will operate freely in Essequibo without Venezuelan interference and offer us a decent return. Build a democratic transparent fortress. Then Venezuela can sabre-rattle all it wants; it will be pointless.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
