Dear Editor,
Shameful as it may be to countenance, Forbes Burnham, the first Prime Minister of Guyana, was an agent of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before and, during his tenure in office (1962-72). This is a fact and not an ‘accusation’ as the Sunday Stabroek Editorial of 19.11.23 suggests. A fact is something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information; a fact is truth about events not subject to interpretation. The evidence of Burnham’s actions is laid out in various unimpeachable memoranda available from the United States Office of the Historian, which is responsible, under law, for the preparation and publication of the official documentary history of U.S. foreign policy.
The SN Editorial also claims that “It is true that Burnham had not acted in consultation with the PPP leadership, but Geneva did not give recognition to the `spurious Venezuelan territorial claim’ … it would be interesting to see where the claim was given validity before the Geneva Agree-ment. The American view was expressed in 436. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to All American Republic Posts (July 17, 1968)
1. Background: Dispute originates in 1899 Arbitral Award of territory west of Essequibo River (about five-eighths of what is now Guyana) to Great Britain. GOV has since 1962 maintained officially that arbitral award was result “fraudulent deal” between British and Russian members tribunal and therefore award is null and void. In period immediately prior to British granting independence to Guyana, Venezuela pressed for reopening question of where boundary should lie in belief that Venezuela could more easily twist tail of British lion than of small newly sovereign neighbor. In February 1966 at Geneva UK, British Guiana and Venezuela Governments signed agreement establishing Mixed Commission to discuss dispute arising out of Venezuelan claim.
This demonstrates there was no valid claim and the question of the borders was not ‘open’ before the Agreement was signed. Over the years, some have posited that Burnham signed the Agreement in his haste and lust for power, as it defied logic to agree to solve a problem that would be given life by that very agreement. My analysis is updated based on the revelation of Burnham’s paymasters and their Cold War imperative to keep communism (The PPP) from gaining control of Guyana’s government.
Another U.S Memorandum (426) provides evidence that Burnham knew the US influence (and involvement?) with Vene-zuela. “The Prime Minister described his border difficulties with Venezuela during the past year… He asked the President if the United States could use its influence with Venezuela to be less `bellicose’ about the boundary problem.” In (430) a Memorandum to President Johnson said: “Our strategy is to use our influence to restrain the Venezuelans from further adventurism along the frontier and from too much politicking at home. We have repeatedly reminded the Venezuelans that if they undermine Burnham, they run the risk of getting a communist bridgehead at their back door under Cheddi Jagan”.
It is pellucid that the Americans were using the Border dispute and the threat of Communism to exert influence in both countries, whether by design, machination, or change of circumstance is yet to be examined fully and determined.
The Sunday Stabroek makes assumptive statements “The Geneva Agreement has provided an umbrella for Guyana for nearly sixty years, and that without it we would undoubtedly have been invaded with no one to help us”. I do not accept that the reason Venezuela has not exercised a military invasion is the Geneva Agreement, indeed it was precisely when Guyana had no one to help us and, an empty treasury, that Venezuela stepped in to provide fuel and other aid (1986-2015). The editorial also states as ‘fact’ “from Burnham’s time until now, it should be repeated that none of our leaders, absolutely none, lacked patriotism or a commitment to the nation where its territorial integrity was concerned”. I do not accept this as a fact.
Upon the discovery of oil in 2015, newly elected President Granger changed the tone of our relations with Venezuela which prompted me to write “Granger should stop the patriotic drum-beating while he drives with Venezuelan gas in his tank” (SN 9.7.2015) it was the first in a series of aggressive actions that has led to the rapid deterioration of relations between the nations.
Patriotism is the support of one’s country, it is not a slogan to keep the truth from the light of day, nor is it a shelter to hide inconvenient facts. It is a measure of weakness when one asks another to be ‘patriotic’ instead of factual when presenting an argument. Let us dispense with these calls for ‘unity’ and ‘patriotism’ and instead have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we have nothing to fear. How can we commend Venezuelans Sadio Garavini di Turno and Maria Machado for condemning Maduro’s Referendum while attempting to censure open, honest discussion in Guyana? To suggest that discussion of Burnham’s actions weakens our position at the Hague is simplistic and fallacious, if anything, it strengthens the argument that the claim is spurious and there is evidence of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez’s words that it was an ‘imperialist plan’ to keep communism in check.
Editor, Guyana is committed to its case at the ICJ and, we all expect a favourable outcome, this is precisely why we should be looking at ways to tone down the rhetoric and re-establish good relations with our westerly neighbours, for after the ICJ ruling, we will still be side-by-side for eternity and, it would be more useful to remind what we achieved as friends than to ramp up the ‘patriotism’ on either side. As of now, there have been no actions that are irreparable and with the prudent application of diplomacy, there is no barrier to restoration of good relations between our countries.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
