Dear Editor,
Like a two-headed eborsisk, the Guyana/Venezuela controversy has reared its head once again, this time in a more aggressive and bellicose fashion on the Venezuelan side.
This is a marked departure from the Chavista philosophy.
Hugo Chavez at a public forum held at the Pegasus Hotel during his visit to Guyana in February 2004, referring to Guyana-Venezuela relations declared, “Through a process of positive dialogue and mutual understanding differences can be narrowed.”
And one of the country’s daily newspapers reflecting on Chavez’s visit had this to say;
‘The Chavez administration has in fact ushered in a new era of relations between Venezuela and Guyana. The Venezuelan Government has not been aggressive towards Guyana but it has been a friendly partner in developing closer hemispheric relations.’
Clearly Chavez’s call for ‘positive dialogue and mutual understanding’ has been jettisoned and replaced by Maduro’s exhortation to his countrymen and women to “fight against the dispossession of a territory that always belonged to Venezuela.”
Maduro’s foreign policy has evolved from one characterized by ambivalence to a more aggressive relationship with Guyana.
History has demonstrated that when a regime is isolated internally and externally, the need to have an external enemy and to whip up jingoistic exultations among its populace is to be expected. In the case of Venezuela’s policy towards Guyana, it was only a matter of time.
Let’s be clear every sitting PPP/C president, save President Samuel Hinds, has had a taste of the Venezuelan bitter cup.
With Cheddi Jagan, it was a request by President Carlos Andres Perez that Venezuela be granted a sliver of Guyana’s national territory to facilitate Venezuela’s access to the Atlantic. A request that was rejected by Jagan as Opposition Leader and later, as President of Guyana.
With President Janet Jagan it was the move to entrap Guyana in the ‘Globality’ proposal intended to shift the controversy away from the multilateral to the bilateral level. This move was rejected by Guyana resulting in Venezuelan’s spurious claim that ‘Guyana was ignoring its obligations under the Geneva Agreement’ and culminating with the declaration by President Rafael Caldera in November 1998 that ‘Venezuela would not renounce its rightful claim to the Essequibo.”
President Bharrat Jagdeo’s loss of the multi-million dollar Beal Aerospace satellite launch investment in October 2000 and a major Chinese investment in the forestry sector came as a result of Venezuela’s aggressive foreign policy initiatives.
Now that both Maduro and Guaido are at one in respect to their county’s spurious claim, the question now, is what will be the position of the US administration since it backs Guaido and has handed him almost all of Venezuela’s foreign missions, save its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, virtually clipping Maduro’s external affairs wings.
With reference to yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek editorial, calling out the PPP/C administration to ‘get its act together and committed to a major programme backed by all political parties and groups, (I would add, individuals who are not in a party or group but who nevertheless could make a contribution) ‘to counter the pernicious and ignorant propaganda that has been promoted by Caracas for decades’ is to be
welcomed notwithstanding the justification that all of this should have been a work in progress over the years, however in the circumstances, ‘Better late than never.’
Further the call for a number of steps to be taken including a ‘multi-level response, use of social media, creation of a framework for educating the population and the need for a group to visit work places, the need for a commission – or at least- a group to organize all of this’ and finally, for the ‘allocation of resources to such a large scale exercise’ should be categorized as no recommendation should be left behind.
It is a pity however that all of this is coming now like a knee jerk response to a matter that has for past decades been hanging over the nation’s head like an ominous cloud ready to burst.
Among the many weakness in our democracy is the casting aside, because of political differences, of persons who are knowledgeable on matters of strategic and national importance. Our paucity of human capital makes such an approach ill-advised and unaffordable.
I recall inviting former Foreign Minister Jackson to join me in helping to formulate a political and diplomatic response to Suriname’s expulsion of CGX from an area Guyana considered to be within its maritime boundaries.
During my tenure as Foreign Minister I secured the permission of the Ministry of Education to visit high schools to give talks on the Guyana/Venezuela border controversy. The students and teachers welcomed the initiative.
I tabled and got the approval of the National Assembly of a motion calling for the establishment of the first ever a Select Parliamentary Borders Committee in December 1994.
The Committee comprising of both government and opposition, was established to monitor, analyze, and inform parliament on matters pertaining to the integrity of Guyana’s frontiers; the Committee was empowered to invite individuals and persons from other organizations and institutions; and to receive information and expert advice and to assist it in its deliberations and activities.
In the circumstances, possibilities should be explored to establish a parliamentary committee of a similar nature.
The Commonwealth Ministerial Group established in November 1999 at the 16th CHOGM comprising five Commonwealth nations to monitor developments in respect to the existing Guyana/Venezuela controversy should be briefed about recent developments.
The same should apply to CARICOM and the Permanent Council of the OAS.
The inexorable move by Guyana away from the United Nations Good Offices Process to the World Court in the search for a juridical settlement brought the curtains down on the prospects for continued functional cooperation between the two countries, which, did bring some benefits to Guyana.
But what is done is done. Guyana has permanent interests and one of its permanent interests is to always consolidate and protect its territorial integrity and national sovereignty and to keep moving forward for the betterment of its people and future generations.
A great opportunity has presented itself for country to be put before party. As a united people under the banner ‘Not a blade of Grass’ we certainly have our work cut out for us.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee