Dear Editor,
I join with all of Guyana in expressing condolences to the families of the servicemen who tragically died in the Cuyuni-Mazaruni Region. They are martyrs of a long-standing threat from our predator neighbour on the west (and to the east). There is a fundamental principle of international law associated with the Latin phrase, pacta sunt servanda, translated to mean that “the agreement must be kept” by the signatories involved, unless conditions change. Since 1899, Venezuela abided by that principle regarding our settled western boundary (demarcated in 1905), but the discussions between 1962 and 1966, which led to the Geneva Agreement, placed the Sword of Damocles over our collective heads. There is enough blame to go around as to how we arrived at this point, but that is water under the bridge. Nicolas Maduro must know that the world stands united against Venezuelan perfidy.
As a tribute to lives lost, this is a timely occasion to recall the gallantry of our men and women in uniform who provided exemplary service in our defence against the secessionist insurrection in the Rupununi in 1969, which David Granger referred to as “the country’s earliest and severest test of statehood.” Venezuela’s current aggression bears likeness to its extra-territorial claim dating back to the 1960s, which is rooted in the secessionist insurrection in the Rupununi initiated by the Hart-Melville cattle farming clans. Valerie Hart, a member of the United Force (subsequently disowned by the UF), declared herself to be “President of the Essequibo Free State.” In cahoots with the Melvilles, she was able to secure support from the Venezuelans, no doubt emboldened by the seizure of the island of Ankoko in the Cuyuni River in 1966.
At the time of the rebellion, President Raúl Leoni’s government had embarked on an ambitious national plan, which incorporated infrastructural development (highways, freeways and bridges) and heavy industry projects, including hydroelectric, iron and steel, in the Orinoco area and the Venezuelan states located close to the Essequibo border, in the Delta Amacuro, Monagas, Bolivar and Anzoátegui regions. Hart reportedly met with the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Minister, Ignacio Iribarren Borges in Caracas and affirmed that the rebels intended to help Venezuela gain access to the Essequibo county. The New York Times reported in 1969 (March 3) that the Rupununi rebellion was led by white ranch owners, who “objected to the Negro-dominated Government of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham.” Revelations from statements made by Venezuelan authorities and captured insurrectionists, confirmed that Caracas provided the rebellious lot with moral support, an operational base, covert training, air transportation and light weaponry (in the form of machine guns and portable M-9 Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers or bazookas).
According to Granger (a Lieutenant at the time) the military operation was commanded by the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Colonel Ronald Pope, and a task force drawn from the 2nd Battalion Headquarters under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Cecil Martindale and comprised of three companies – No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 Company. A young Lieutenant named Joseph Singh was attached to No. 6 Company. The defence troops were airlifted on the 90-minute flight to Rupununi from Timehri (Atkinson then) by three senior pilots, Michael Chan-A-Sue, Roland da Silva and Philip Jardim. As a footnote, Captains Roland da Silva, Michael Chan-A-Sue, Philip Jardim, (along with Anthony Mekdeci) performed a similar task during the Surinamese incursion. Relying on scouts, guides and drivers recruited from the indigenous community, particularly the Makushi, Wapishana and Wai-Wai, the GDF led a 10-day operation, resulting in the elimination of the insurrection. The army quickly took control of Lethem, captured a number of rebels, and restored government authority in the area. Nine people were killed. When the operation was over, Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, in a radio broadcast that now seems prophetic, said the rebellion was a “beginning” and Guyana must “expect further acts of aggression and intimidation from the new imperialism on our western doorstep.”
Key leaders of the Hart-Melville clan took refuge in Venezuela and were granted citizenship by the Venezuelan government, merely because they were recognized as being born in the Guayana Esequiba area. So, when Ralph Ramkarran wrote last Sunday that the recent ICJ decision “stops Venezuela in its Bolivarian tracks from invading Guyana or from issuing passports or ID cards to the residents of Essequibo” nothing can be further from the truth. Venezuela is a narco-dictatorship run by a military cartel (Cartel de los Soles), with fraternal connection to the terrorist organization Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Not surprisingly, Naim Moses, the editor in chief of Foreign Policy describes Nicolás Maduro Moros (US State Department placed a bounty of $15 million on his head!) as a “Mafia Boss” running a “Den of thieves.” Maduro is gambling for time, armed with the knowledge that the Venezuelan people are united around a single issue: la Zona en Reclamacion will become Guayana Esequiba, its 24 state. The Venezuelans displayed their maps (incorporating Essequibo) on their cuadernos, and students were reading Desde El Orinoco Hasta El Esequibo (Since the Orinoco Until the Essequibo) as early as 1966, inculcating Venezuelan expansionist sentiments spanning across generations.
In this period of national distress, it is disheartening to notice an unchallenged letter published in Stabroek News (12/4) in which Lincoln Lewis wrote that the PPP “over the years displayed no sense of nationalism,” inexorably implying that PPP supporters are anti-nationalistic. David Hinds endorses the same message on his social media platform ad nauseam, essentially arguing that the “carpetbaggers” governing the country were historically imbued with an anti-nationalist perspective because of the original PPP’s pro-Soviet position. This politically perverse rhetoric, however, ignores the historical paramountcy and ethnicization of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana which was so convincingly documented in a Ford Foundation-funded study on the disciplined forces by George Danns’ book, in his book, Domination and Power in Guyana.
I end with a short story of unity related to me by a former GDF member, Daniel Gibran, who served as a medic in the Rupununi operations. As Burnham was retrofitting the army by purging high ranking Indian officers, who he felt would be untrustworthy, and possibly disloyal, Joe Singh, the Captain and Commander for No. 6 Company, composed mostly of Africans, became one of his targets. When his men visited the interior, Joe, referred fraternally by his men as “Joe-boy,” would personally visit the homes of the men in his company and comfort their families. As word of Burnham’s actions reached his men, they threatened mutiny. It was Brigadier Clarence Price, and the majority of African men in uniform who raised objections. Burnham backed down. Joe Singh eventually rose to the rank of Major General.
National defense and security are public goods that benefit all citizens. No one should accuse others of enjoying a free ride. Ravi Dev and myself have consistently advocated for a well-trained, professional, well-financed, superior armed force that functions as an elite agency dedicated to defense – and deterrence – against foreign threats. More importantly, it is imperative that the government establish – and implement – a clear national policy to ensure that an inclusive GDF reflects the complexion of our Guyanese population. The emergent challenges to our territorial integrity and national sovereignty demand no less, particularly for a small state with the potential to become a game-changer in the region.
Sincerely,
Baytoram Ramharack
