Dear Editor,
Allow me to add to your editorial last Sunday headlined “Mr. Trump and Guyana.” Trump is a narcissist and an inveterate prevaricator. His business acumen is questionable, and, to top that, he is an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon. Nevertheless, a majority of Americans chose him to be their leader and that is their will and right. His election, however, is sure to uproot long standing democratic institutions and policies both internally and externally and usher in a geopolitical calamity of unmeasurable proportions that will be detrimental to nations both large and small. His cabinet picks will ensure this and repercussions will be felt the world over. Even little Guyana tucked away at the tip of the South American continent will not escape the adverse effects.
The State Department Head is an interesting one. Marco Rubio is a weak and craven individual with a chameleon like personality and his foreign policy practices and outreach would invariably reflect such foibles and be taken advantage of on the world stage. The one encouraging factor is that he is totally against the current Venezuelan and (Cuban) regimes. We, therefore, have to find ways to influence the thinking that our cause is a just one and is supported by this new Trump administration regarding our rights and sovereignty and the threat that Venezuela under Maduro pose to our very existence. Trump may not be able to find Guyana on the world map but one hopes that Rubio can. Does Maduro get to do what he wants in and with Guyana? Maduro is no doubt looking on closely at these developments and sitting very smug in Miraflores. World events and circumstances are now cementing his “win” at the polls.
Guyana should not overlook Maduro’s close ties with Russia nor China. What would stop him from asking Putin to make sure that Trump continues to play golf and allow him to do what he wants with and in Guyana? Putin does have some hold on Trump as manifested by Trump’s admiration for him. One hopes that Guyana has and is continuously developing and laying out Plans B, C and D, to ensure and safeguard our territorial sovereignty. Some contend that Exxon‘s influence is one which we can enjoin to sway Trump to our cause in the territorial claim by Venezuela.
Does Guyana really know and understand what Exxon really wants out of and from Guyana? What more would Exxon demand as a quid pro quo to be an intermediary with Trump and is Guyana
willing to pay that price? Can Exxon bridge that gap? Do not expect Trump to direct troops to our physical defense unless he is assured of a quick victory without loss of life that he can brag about. Putin will likely talk him out of it as I do not believe that neither Russia nor China wants to let go of the foothold being established in Venezuela under the Maduro regime. Russia and China play a long game and Trump does not.
The issues raised in your editorial provide food for thought but I believe that the most important message is found in your final paragraph which contends that “Whatever transpires the lesson is clear. The government has to start doing what it promised last year and still has not managed to get underway: it has to re-educate the population at all levels about what their rights in relation to Essequibo are and what the true history of that county is.” The current Government and previous administrations always beat their chests and shout to the top of the world “not a blade of grass” when pressured with Venezuela’s periodic reminders of its claim. The ensuing halfhearted attempts to educate the populace on the history of the threats quickly subside and are hurriedly forgotten. Why is this part of our history not taught in our schools?
As a school boy many moons ago, I literally had no idea that Venezuela even had a claim to our land. I end with an anecdote on this very topic. On one of my yearly trips to Guyana last November, I was seated next to an individual who turned out to be a Trinidadian New York based businessman involved in the construction industry in Guyana. At that time, Venezuela’s claim was nearing one of its feverish peaks and I spent quite some time explaining the evolution of the history of the claim over Guyana’s territory and why we were in the right. He thanked me for the information and pointed out that the Government should do more to encourage and educate those who show interest in investing in Guyana.
Subsequent similar discussions at famous high-end watering holes while in Georgetown revealed that many Guyanese did not then take the Venezuelan threat or claim seriously and they merely shrugged their shoulders and concluded that Venezuela was not serious in its threats and events would soon blow over. I was flabbergasted by such nonchalance given the severity and seriousness of the claim by Venezuela. Such reaction can only be the direct result of the ignorance of the facts pertaining to the claim Venezuela has been advancing and promoting since Mallet-Prevost died. We need as much mouthpieces as we can find to meaningfully and continuously plug the historical facts surrounding the frivolous nature of this claim the world over. We must prepare for the eventual decision of the ICJ on the pronouncement of the claim.
The first line of defense has to be diplomacy and one hopes that any randomly selected individual from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can intelligibly convince anyone that our cause is just, right, and must be supported and defended. The most important one, however, as your editorial pointed out, has to be the continuous education of the Guyanese populace and friends of our right and the reasons why we have to and must defend this spurious Venezuelan claim to three-quarters of our land mass.
Sincerely,
R. N. Mungol