If we all thought the Argyle Declaration would allow us to usher in the New Year in traditional fashion without interruption from President Nicolás Maduro, we were mistaken. He still had a shot left to fire before the curtain came down on what has been a tension-filled 2023. This time it was all about the UK sending a patrol vessel, the HMS Trent to Guyana’s waters.
Now this is no aircraft carrier or destroyer; while it is equipped with 30mm cannon and a landing pad for helicopters and drones, it is normally used to intercept pirates and drug smugglers. According to reports in the British press it recently conducted joint exercises with the navies of several West African nations, while the UK Defence Ministry has said that it was visiting Guyana as part of a series of engagements in the region and would conduct training exercises with the GDF. It would not put into Port Georgetown, Spanish news agency EFE was told; it would carry out all its activities at sea “as part of a series of routine manoeuvres in the region”.
President Maduro was nevertheless apoplectic. “The threat of the decadent, rotten, ex-empire of the United Kingdom is unacceptable,” he thundered; “The decadent British empire, defunct as it is, puts its dirty hands into a matter that does not concern it.” Is this the same government, one wonders, which argued before the ICJ that the UK should be a party to the proceedings given that it was a signatory to the Geneva Agreement?
In response to the “threat” posed by the Trent, a vessel which carries all of 30 sailors and 18 marines, the Venezuelan head of state deployed 5,682 “combatants”, 12 Sukhoi 30-Mk2 aircraft, three Guaiquerí-class ocean-going patrol boats, 2 capanas-class logistical transports as well as others to the Atlantic façade. If those military theatrics were not enough, he told his nation that “Venezuela has a right to defend itself, to tranquillity, to peace …” Did he seriously think that any sane person would believe that his country needed to defend itself against a modest patrol boat with less than 50 personnel? while the level of the response alone negates his claims about peace and tranquillity.
But of course this was all about something else. “It is the breaking of the spirit of dialogue, diplomacy and peace of the agreements,” Mr Maduro said. He was referring to the Argyle Declaration, which he describes as having been ‘ruptured’. His reference was to Article 1 which states that the two countries will not directly or indirectly threaten or use force against one another.
The lawyers have had their say about Argyle, but it is essentially a document created in a certain political context with certain political aims in mind. It has the stamp of the nine members of Caricom who were present, and most of whom, if not perhaps all of whom do not have clean hands. Far from taking the unambiguous stance of Jamaica or Trinidad’s Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, they sought to reconcile the irreconcilable. On the one hand, they could not endorse the invasion of Guyana by Venezuela, but on the other, since they were beholden economically to Caracas, they were desperate to appease the country to our west.
The degree to which some of them were obligated is perhaps illustrated by the case of Prime Minister and key interlocutor Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent, whose island state benefited from a complete write-off of its PetroCaribe debt amounting to approximately EC$190 million last year. Other participating OECS countries received 50 per cent relief on their remaining debt, it was reported. There were also additional benefits, such as 150 prefabricated houses and shipments of free asphalt for road repairs and free urea for farmers.
Argyle’s Article 1 talks about both states, although everyone around the table, including Mr Maduro knew very well that the only threat of force had come and would come from Venezuela alone. At the same time the Caricom negotiators also knew very well that Venezuela would not accept that the intimidation was all on its side, and holding both countries to account in the document was one of the prices paid by Guyana for a respite from invasion. On the other side of the coin Argyle did allow Venezuela to make a tactical retreat from having to follow through on its annexation foolishness before it was ready, thereby saving face, but this does not mean it could not change its mind in the future.
Following President Maduro’s violent expressions in response to the visit of the Trent, President Irfaan Ali said, “I have iterated before that we harbour no ambitions or intentions to covet what does not belong to us. We are fully committed to peaceful relations with our neighbours and all countries in our Region.” And that is exactly the point. Guyana does not harbour acquisitive designs on Venezuelan territory, and therefore has absolutely no reason to attack our neighbour, even if we had the military means to do so, which Miraflores knows full well we don’t. In contrast, it is Venezuela which has turned its greedy eyes towards three-fifths of our land space and has been engaged in a whole series of moves to acquire it. We are the ones who have cause to fear.
Any military exercises on this side of the border are related to internal security, as President Ali has said. Guyana has had partnerships with regional and international states for a long time, and these, he said, “pose a threat to no one and are in no way intended to be aggressive.” Furthermore, Venezuela “had nothing to fear” from the Trent’s activities in Guyanese waters. Mr Maduro knows that, of course, but as mentioned, purported fear of its activities is not the motivation for his outburst.
In any case, with a large military at his disposal there will be internal exercises of one kind or another on a fairly regular basis, more particularly with an election supposedly in the offing. No one would suggest that such military exercises necessarily constitute a breach of Article 1, and so it is with Guyana’s joint manoeuvres and military training.
And as for those who were present at Argyle, according to the Trinidad Express, Prime Minister Gonsalves was quoted as saying that he had not seen the Argyle Declaration “as being ruptured in any way.” He said he was satisfied “that both sides are interested in dialogue and peace,” and that they were engaged in “non-threatening activities.”
That was a sensible response, as opposed to what emerged from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which urged the two states to return to dialogue, adding that third countries should avoid “military activities” which supported either side. Instead it encouraged them to stay true to the Argyle Declaration. This was clearly directed at Guyana, and displayed a certain lack of even-handedness, since Itamaraty must know as well as everyone else that the aggressor is unequivocally Venezuela, and that Guyana has neither the will nor the means to take on her western neighbour.
Guyana cannot be prohibited under Argyle from training its forces, no matter who does the training. After all, the Cubans have trained the Venezuelans, and may well still do so. In addition, one doubts that Itamaraty will raise any objections to military exercises within Venezuela. Whatever the level of friendship between Brasilia and Caracas, as the heavyweight on the continent, Brazil owes it to small, weak nations like Guyana, to intervene to prevent them from being bullied into submission by the militarily powerful.
And if Brazil is so concerned about Article 1, what about Article 6 whereby both states agree to refrain whether by word or deed from escalating any conflict or disagreement between them? Has Itamaraty not noticed that Venezuela is in constant violation of this provision? Certainly Miraflores’s rhetoric is less high decibel than it once was, but it is still conducive to tension. The designated deputies in the National Assembly have still supported the foundation
of the state of Guayana Esequiba; the law to bring that into effect is still being discussed in every state in the country; President Maduro is still reiterating his intention to “fully recover” Essequibo and “[move] forward with great force” on this; and his Christmas message was still entitled The Christmas of the Essequibo, through an “emotional message from the Venezuelan indigenous peoples in defence of the integrity of the national territory.” There are all kinds of other things too, such as what is happening in the grubby mining town of Tumeremo.
The point about the supposed violation of Article 1 is just a convenience for Mr Maduro, so he can refer to it if he needs as an example of Guyana’s breach of the Declaration – he will no doubt be looking for others too. On December 14 he picked up his Ace of Spades from the table and put it in his back pocket. For the moment. He has now started to wave it around, but whether he will lay it down on the table again depends on internal political factors which cannot be predicted at this point.
