Dear Editor,
It is always better to sift through the many press reports, pressers, editorials, contributions by columnists and letter writers in order to have a useful reflection on the historic meeting between the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela before offering a considered opinion. It is, what it is; a tale of two countries with different strategies for the resolution of a border controversy. Guyana, as a liberal democracy, is pursuing a national democratic path for growth and development. It pursues a foreign policy based on defense diplomacy, peaceful coexistence between states and the non-use of force for the settlement of disputes. To most Guyanese, Venezuela pursues a foreign policy towards Guyana with annexationist ambitions in mind while claiming at the same time to be in favour of peace. It is recognized world-wide that Venezuela’s aggressive posture towards Guyana is unacceptable if not bewildering to say the least.
Argyle took place at a time of importance in the context of Guyana/Venezuela relations and for the maintenance of peace in the Caribbean in general. Added to that, are the influence and reach of the driving forces who were directly or indirectly involved in the successful realization of the meeting. But what should not be overlooked nor dismissed, were the views expressed by CARICOM watchers who raised concerns about the efficacy of the meeting, the absence of certain CARICOM member states and the text of the declaration. I ask the above question in the light of political developments that preceded the convening of the Argyle encounter. Those developments demonstrate once again, that under extenuating circumstances the exclusive sovereignty of a state shall no longer be tenable.
The exchange of letters and consultations at the highest levels of government demonstrated beyond any doubt that sovereignty is now shared both on a level above the state i.e., international law (the ICJ) and at the level of regional bodies such as CARICOM and CELAC. In the circumstances, it was not so much the exerting of pressure on President Ali as some have claimed, but the keen realization that sovereignty has evolved to the extent that it is no longer exclusive but a shared political concept that can yield profit at the ballot box, defense of territorial integrity or the resolution of potential regional conflict. Anyone who saw the movie ‘Inside Out’ would recognize the close match between the genre of that movie and the character of the meeting at Argyle.
Long before the meeting, it was obvious that certain ideas were innate and hardwired into the brains of the populace on both sides of the border. As far as we Guyanese are concerned, it was not only the existential threat to our country’s territorial integrity, but that threat, combined with the death of five Guyanese servicemen that created a mixture of sadness, anger, fear and anxiety that the Ali administration was called upon to address effectively. From the clips transmitted via podcasts showing the face to face meeting between the two presidents, what was discernible was the emotions in their
individual faces which, at the same time, mirrored understandably so, the emotions on the collective faces of their respective peoples.
Long before the meeting at Argyle, those emotions had trickled down into pervading public consciousness as an incontrovertible fact. As events preparatory to the meeting unfolded, it was obvious to many that public opinion had established itself as a constant, rather than an intermittent factor in the conception and execution of foreign policy as per Guyana and Venezuela. Small wonder why the declaration; ‘Noted Guyana’s assertion that it is committed to the process and procedures of the International Court of Justice for the resolution of the border controversy. Noted Venezuela’s assertion of its lack of consent and lack of recognition of the International Court of Justice and its jurisdiction in the border controversy.’ In this regard, we are reminded that in a democratic society, public opinion matters so long as government is favourably disposed to carrying the populace along with it to support its foreign policy on a specific matter.
A tour d’horizon of all that was written and said thus far, about the meeting at Argyle, show that the Ali administration scored great success in winning public opinion over to its side at home and abroad. Insofar as the meeting itself was concerned, Guyanese recognized that President Ali went to the meeting armed with a strategic outlook, a firm understanding of Guyana’s national interest, knowledge of the history of the controversy, knowledge of his counterpart and how to treat with him. At the same time, keen watchers of the meeting had wrapped their heads around the notion to not be surprised by the unexpected. For a long time, few questioned whether there was a controversy or border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, and those who disputed that fact were either silently mocked at diplomatic gatherings or rejected by newspapers columnists and editorials.
Many have expressed the view that the meeting at Argyle was a triumph for diplomacy forgetting the reality that while Guyana and Venezuela can chose their friends, neither can chose their neighbours, meaning implicitly that good neighbourly relations should prevail at all times. It is this realpolitik that caused drafters to include in the declaration; ‘Committed to the pursuance of good neighbourliness, peaceful coexistence, and the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean’. In other words, having cleared the decks in respect to where each President stood concerning the forum to address the territorial controversy/dispute, the contiguity of our borders imposes upon both countries the need to conduct themselves in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, utilizing them as indispensable tools to address secondary issues bilaterally thus; ‘Agreed to continue dialogue on any other pending matters of mutual importance to the two countries.’
These secondary issues may include migration; drug trafficking; cooperation in health, sports and culture; people to people exchanges; poverty and climate crisis; food security; win-win cooperation and a shared future for regional security. Diplomacy is the term given to the official channels of communication employed by states who, while retaining sovereignty, act as if they are part of one body. By its very nature, diplomacy turns chiefly on regular and regularized negotiations. In this connection, the ‘The Joint Declaration of Argyle for dialogue and peace between Guyana and Venezuela’ makes provision that ‘Both States agreed to meet again in Brazil, within the next three months, or at another agreed time, to consider any matter with implications for the territory in dispute, including the above-mentioned update of the joint commission.’
On a concluding note, it is apposite to recall the view of Harold Nicholson, British politician, diplomat and historian who in October 1946 wrote; ‘Diplomatic negotiations, after all, were not a football match … in which one side scored against the other amid the cheers or hoots of the spectators… diplomatic victories are invariably bad; a good diplomatic arrangement is one in which each party feels it has acquired benefits…’
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
Minister of Foreign Affairs (Former)
