Yesterday it was reported that the Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations had agreed for a motion to be laid in Parliament about mounting a public sensitisation campaign on the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy. This is welcome news, since it is likely that a large segment of the population knows very little about the issue. It can only be hoped that the Committee’s plans extend to supplying information to teachers so children can learn about our territorial rights in school.
A public relations exercise is particularly important in the light of the fact that the Venezuelan propaganda machine does not sleep. Quite senior officials to our west have been churning out all kinds of balderdash, especially on social media, so not just Venezuelan citizens have easy access to it, but the entire continent and beyond. It makes sense that officials here should become aware of how the policymakers in Caracas think, and the nature of their arguments, if such they can be called.
One can only hope that in addition to all the approaches which have been agreed with the opposition, the government takes it upon itself to augment the personnel in our Caracas embassy at this time so it has enough human resources there to get a feel for what is going on at the bureaucratic centre of the neighbouring state. It will be essential for informing judgements about the direction matters might be taking, among other things.
But there is also a case for telling the public some of the things Venezuela is saying about us, so they can acquire a real understanding of what Guyana is facing. If the politicians here describe the more serious claims the Venezuelans are making, they can then explain why it is our neighbours are talking nonsense. To take one example, there is Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez stating that “Venezuela has never, ever recognized Guyana’s territory of Guyana Essequiba [sic]”. It did so for 63 years, in addition to insisting that the 1899 Award be followed when surveyors were demarcating the boundary with then British Guiana, and when fixing the tri-junction point on Mt Roraima in1931.
To take another example, Caracas is insisting that it is operating in accordance with international law and the principles of the Geneva Agreement of 1966. In fact the opposite is the case, with Venezuela acting in defiance of international law, while it has been deliberately misinterpreting the Geneva Agreement for more than half a century.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has previously lucidly explained these matters in a flyer as well as in other publications, but these presume a fair measure of literacy. Perhaps those who will be responsible for disseminating information need to look at much less conventional and innovative means of propagating data, to allow Guyanese at all levels to have some inkling of what is going on. It would not require the transmission of much detail, and does not have to be confined to print format.
For their part Venezuelan commentators have no respect for Guyanese or those who they believe support them. There is Caricom, which on Tuesday declared that the proposed referendum by Venezuela had no validity and could undermine regional peace and security, being subsequently attacked in the crudest fashion. “That club of beggarly islands and sinister economies, some of them linked to tax havens and drug trafficking, recently issued an official statement supporting Guyana in its border dispute with Venezuela. Miserable!” wrote Beltrán Vallejo in Tal Cual. He went on to grumble about the resumption of the Petrocaribe programme last year, and how the beneficiaries were now stabbing Venezuela in the back, as he described it.
He did not, however, restrict himself to Caricom. Even China came within his sights. So, why the tantrums and insults against Guyanese and “gringos” if our Chinese partners are also exploiting the Essequibo territory and recognizing Guyanese sovereignty there? he asked. “How far does Maduro’s submission to the empire of the mandarins of the Chinese Communist Party go?” Of course Cuba too had to come in for mention, although he said he would not say more about this “because my fingers on the keyboard are trembling with Venezuelan patriotic rage and indignation.” What will be noted about this is that Mr Vallejo is an opposition writer, which doesn’t have much significance, since for the most part the opposition stands with the government on this issue.
Venezuelan officialdom isn’t much noted for its sense of humour, but Foreign Minister Yván Gil might qualify for a gig at a comedy club somewhere. In an official statement with reference to this country’s response to the referendum which was circulated on social media, he said: “Guyana’s statements, once again, are being drafted by the law firm employed by Exxon Mobil …” This is so risible that literally the only response can be laughter. He didn’t end there, because he went on to assert that President Irfaan Ali was refusing dialogue, thereby escalating the “conflict” dangerously, something which was being promoted by the US Southern Command. For his part, Defence Minister, Vladimir Padrino López, took it a step further by claiming the United States was attempting to colonize Guyana. This should come as a shock to many Guyanese, not a few of whom spend so much time trying to get into the United States.
But perhaps Mr Gil has a competitor in the form of first Vice President Diosdado Cabello, who said that the President of Guyana was appointed by US transnationals with the aim of seizing territorial waters which belonged to Venezuela. Well if he was, someone forgot to mention it to the PPP Executive and Central Committees, not to mention Mr Bharrat Jagdeo or the people of Guyana who voted for his party in a democratic election. It seems Venezuelan public officials have never felt inhibited by the truth, because he also said that President Ali “constitutes today a factor of disturbance of peace in the region because this gentleman, complying with the orders of his bosses, gives concessions for oil and gas exploitation in territory that is under discussion …”
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the people of Venezuela are totally monolithic in their outlook on the question of what approach should be taken in relation to Essequibo. There is, for instance, the NGO Control Ciudadano, which according to its website works for the right of citizens to exercise control over the security and defence sectors and the National Armed Forces. It applies, it says, the principles of democracy, human rights, transparency, participation and the rule of law. It has been reported as regarding the questions which will be asked in the referendum as a “mockery”, and considers that Venezuelans who do not participate in it will come under threat as “traitors to the homeland.”
The referendum, its President Rocío San Miguel said, was related to internal politics and not to foreign policy, and would aggravate the tensions with Guyana. There was also a warning of a greater deployment of the armed forces which would increase the probability of a conflict and danger to the region.
Then there is the Academy of Political and Social Sciences which two weeks ago was reported as having urged the National Assembly not to hold the consultative referendum since it could cause more confusion among Venezuelans with respect to President Maduro and foreign policy. Instead they recommended that the government consider asking the ICJ to adopt urgent measures to prevent the exploitation of marine resources which they said were yet to be adjudicated. The authorities should “affirm and defend full sovereignty in the maritime and submarine areas of projection of our Atlantic façade from Punta Barima,” it said.
Mr Antonio Ecarri of Alianza del Lápiz, a small opposition party, agreed with that proposal, but also called for Venezuela to defend its right before the ICJ, and summon experts in the field to provide the evidence that the territory is Venezuelan. His government to date has refused to recognise the ICJ proceedings.
None of these entities, however, holds much sway in the circles of power.
From Luis González Morales in the Caracas Chronicles at the end of last month comes a view on a different topic, namely, would Mr Maduro actually up the ante over Essequibo. His conclusion is that all the sabre-rattling will remain as nothing more than “bothersome noise”. He wrote that he was not convinced that a military operation on the part of Venezuela would change people’s minds about Maduro and his government, despite all the claims on social media that the country should act with force and that a small-scale successful operation could rally ruling party voters.
“Antagonizing the United States (beyond some tweets) and seeking a conflict against another nation are two things that may not play into Maduro’s personal interests, even if they may be in the interest of his country,” he said.
While all of that may possibly be true, Guyana still has to be on its guard, since the thing about these situations is that events can easily slip out of the control of politicians and take on a life of their own. In the meantime, we have to keep an eye out for what is being said and written in Caracas, and inaugurate our campaign to sensitise the public to Venezuelan greed and arrogance as soon as possible. The fingers of everyone on a computer keyboard should be ‘trembling with patriotic rage and indignation.’