Dear Editor,
Retired Rear Admiral, Gary Best, has expressed a series of opinions on the matter of Guyana’s national security. In earlier days, I knew and worked with Gary Best in the world of rugby and, even then, I knew him to be unpredictable, controversial and self-centered. He hasn’t changed. He always was and remains a hardcore supporter of the People’s National Congress and, in fact, sits on the Central Executive Committee of that party. He was, however, appointed to serve as Chief-of-Staff, the Head of our Defence Forces, by the PPP government from September 2007 – September 2013. Given that fact, for him to now attack the recent Budget of failing to provide sufficient funds “to secure the nation state of Guyana and its citizens” in the context of the Maduro government’s declared threat to annex the Essequibo is not only sheer nonsense but reckless and irresponsible as a former defence chief. In doing so, he plays to the propaganda of Maduro.
Our national security, the integrity of our borders and their protection is not a matter for political gamesmanship and Gary Best should be ashamed of himself because he’s knowledgeable enough to know better. It can be argued that, in recent years, previous governments, including that of the APNU/AFC, have neglected to budget enough money for the country’s security forces, both GDF and the Police, perhaps, because we are a nation of peace with no aggressive intentions towards our neighbouring countries, but that is not now the case. In fact, the Budget has doubled, that is, increased by 100% the funding for the Guyana Defence Force for purely defensive purposes because we are the target of aggression from the current Venezuelan government and have been from Suriname.
It’s worth remembering that the only actual border war we have ever fought was in removing an attempted Surinamese occupation of the New River Triangle at which my late brother Martin was the on-site Commander and, fortuitously, there was no loss of life on either side. Best goes on, in his Opinion, playing politics by accusing the PPP of having “‘wished away’ this existential danger to Guyana for 23 years while in office” while forgetting the fact that it was the People’s National Congress, under Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, that signed on to the Geneva Agreement, which, to this day, is conveniently misinterpreted by the Maduro government. To be fair to Burnham, however, it was in response to the Venezuelan government in 1962 unilaterally declaring the 1899 Boundary Award to be null and void on the eve of Guyana being granted Independence, that the British government, which had responsibility for British Guiana’s external relations, in 1966, entered into the Geneva Agreement with the concurrence of the government of British Guiana, to seek what was described then as “satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom”.
Not satisfied, Best then attempts to emphasise what he calls the “frailty of the Argyle Declaration”. For Best to seriously believe, never mind argue, that the result of the meeting in Argyle could have been an agreement entirely in favour of Guyana, suggests that he lives in cloud coo-coo land or displays a degree of naivety in the business of negotiating controversial international agreements; that is not expected from a former Chief-of-Staff. Before the Declaration of Argyle, the likelihood of a Venezuelan invasion of the Essequibo was very real indeed. At Argyle, Maduro was forced to agree that “Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States” and “with any controversies between the two States will be resolved in accordance with international law”. Further, Guyana’s commitment “to the process and procedures of the International Court of Justice for the resolution of the border controversy” was placed on record and recognized by the Declaration.
Best behaves as though our government is not perfectly aware that Maduro was promised, in Barbados last October, the withdrawal of US government sanctions on Venezuela’s oil exports on condition that he conducts free and fair elections but, instead, he has manipulated a Venezuelan Supreme Court ban on his major political opponent, Opposition Leader, Maria Machado, and is now faced with the immediate shutdown of US government support and may well, therefore, be driven to violate all of the commitments he has made in the Argyle Declaration. In fact, Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, said as much at his Press Conference last week when journalists asked his opinion on Maduro’s violation of his Barbados pledge, in warning, the Trinidad & Tobago government to be very cautious in dealing with Venezuela on the Dragon oil deal. For Best to suggest, therefore, that millions of dollars must suddenly be poured in to building the Defence Force in order to go to war with Venezuela is unbelievably foolish.
Guyana’s primary defence against Venezuela is the exercise of diplomacy, reliance on international law and commitment to the ruling of the International Court of Justice. Best must recognise that all but one South American nation has declared its unqualified opposition to Venezuela’s claim on the Essequibo. The United Kingdom and, indeed, the Commonwealth Community, and the government of France, have all declared their active support for Guyana. When British Minister for the Americas and the Caribbean, David Rutley, visited Guyana in December last year he was unequivocal in declaring that “the UK will continue to work with partners in the region, as well as through international bodies, to ensure the territorial integrity of Guyana is upheld”.
Best must recognise that the US government has made its position pellucid. In January, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Western Hemisphere at the US Department of Defense, Daniel P. Erikson, responsible for US Defense and Security Policy for the Region, including Canada, Mexico, South and Central America and the Caribbean, in his first trip overseas this year visited Guyana underlining the US government’s defense and security partnership with our country. Last Sunday (4th February) US Deputy National Security Advisor, Jon Finer (described as a heavyweight in the Biden administration), emphasised the fact that the US and Guyana were “deepening our defence cooperation” to preserve Guyana’s borders and for Guyana to be able to defend its territorial integrity. The message is clear and represents the policy position of the Biden Democrat administration. But, what of the US Republican party?
US Senator, Marco Rubio, a powerful Republican voice of the US Senate on Foreign Relations on Latin America matters has declared his support for the Biden’s administration joint military operations in Guyana after having met, last September, with President Ali. Rubio has called Maduro a “narco dictator” and the Maduro Referendum to annex the Essequibo as a “sham”. And what of Guyana’s own preparation to defend itself? It’s clear from the recent meetings between Chief-of-Staff, Brigadier Omar Khan and US Southern Command Air Force Commander, Major General Evan Pettus, that we are well advised and well prepared to utilize the detection technology of modern warfare to be forewarned and forearmed against any attempt by Venezuela at a military invasion of our country. Gary Best is well aware of all of this, yet he indulges in the puerile political foolishness of claiming our government “has no policy for the defence of Guyana”.
Let me conclude by reminding Gary Best that in furtherance of the Argyle Declaration, the Foreign Ministers of Guyana and Venezuela have concluded their first meeting held under the auspices of the government of Brazil in Brazil when Foreign Minister, Hugh Todd, underlined the fact that Guyana, at that meeting firmly “reiterated our support and commitment to the UN Charter, with the respect for international law, and the 1966 Geneva Agreement” and later in a following statement reaffirmed that “Guyana maintained that the settlement of this controversy was properly before the International Court of Justice, in accordance with the Geneva Agreement”.
Sincerely,
Kit Nascimento