By Dr Bertrand Ramcharan
Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana
The November/December issue of the authoritative journal, Foreign Affairs, is devoted to the theme of ‘The Return of Total War’ – a new era of comprehensive conflict, such as is taking place in Lebanon, Palestine, and Ukraine. The message is a straightforward one: States are prone to engage in total war, and the risk of total war is ever present over disputes in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere. Another message is that Governments must be prepared in the eventuality of total war.
Venezuela has openly threatened to seize two thirds of Guyana’s national territory by force and has, recently, reportedly been engaged in “orchestrated cyber operations targeting Guyana.” Venezuela is an autocratic country where the guard-rails of democracy are absent. The risk of aggression against Guyana must not be minimised. Autocracy and aggression often go together.
In fact, as Larry Diamond points out in an article in the same issue of Foreign Affairs, the return of total war is taking place in an era in which “democracy and freedom have been in steady retreat. For 18 consecutive years, the non-profit group Freedom House – which tracks changes in political rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law and assigns countries and territories an annual ‘freedom score’ on a scale of zero to 100 – has counted more countries losing freedom than gaining it.”
Larry Diamond, one of the world’s leading authorities on the issues of democracy and free elections, adds: “Today’s autocrats mainly come to power at the ballot box, and they remain in power while maintaining a façade of competitive elections. Of the roughly 30 countries that have lost their democracies since 2006, all but three (the Sahelian coup countries – Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger) have followed this pattern. Holding votes gives autocrats a claim to legitimacy but it makes them vulnerable. … The key to defeating authoritarian populism is to expose its vanity, duplicity, and venality, to show it to be not a defence of the people but a fraud upon the people.”
In her article on The Return of Total War, Johns Hopkins University Professor Mara Karlin, a former US Assistant Secretary of Defence, counsels that “countries need to rethink how fighting happens today and how they should prepare for war going forward”. In the Venezuela-Guyana context this is important advice.
She advises: “traditional approaches to deterrence have regained relevance. One is deterrence by denial – the act of making it difficult for an enemy to achieve its intended objective. Denial can quell escalation…” The question deserves to be asked: does Guyana have the capacity for deterrence? Or is it a sitting duck?
With its energy reserves, which are of strategic importance to the USA, one senses that the authorities are counting on the USA for defence in the event of aggression from Venezuela. But Washington has global defence responsibilities in its competition with China and Russia, and in flashpoints such as Taiwan, Korea, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East. And Prof. Karlin wisely notes that “even though Washington has now demonstrated that it can build a
foreign military with alacrity, the question will always remain as to whether it should. The cost of transferring valuable equipment to a partner involves considerations of the US military’s own readiness levels and combat credibility.”
She adds: “The US military must juggle multiple threats around the world while pacing itself for a long-term competition with China. Bolstering deterrence in the Middle East over the last year has been important, but it has inherently limited the time, attention and resources Washington has devoted to Indo-Pacific security.” How confident can one be that the US will be willing to consider defending Guyana in the case of Venezuelan aggression?
Prof. Karlin thinks that “regional coalition building” could be crucial to staving off aggression. This raises the question of Guyana’s regional coalition building. In political terms, Brazil has given important support to Guyana. CARICOM countries have, on paper, supported Guyana’s stance in the boundary controversy with Venezuela. But there are varying nuances within CARICOM, with some countries apparently sympathetic to Venezuela.
In military terms, it is far from clear that Brazil would be ready to come to Guyana’s support. And even if some CARICOM countries would be ready to come to Guyana’s support, there would be massive logistical issues to address before this could become a realistic possibility.
Which brings us to the question of deterrence capabilities such as defence assets, missiles, artificial intelligence and drones. As a matter of policy, it would seem important for Guyana to give urgent consideration to the establishment of a Ministry of Defence led by a capable Minister of Defence. The situation would seem to justify it.
It is well known that the numbers of Venezuela’s military assets, in personnel and materiel, far outnumber those of Guyana. But, as Prof. Karlin writes, artificial intelligence has enabled the proliferation and utility of uncrewed systems both in the air and under water. Drones have transformed battlefields, and the need for counter-drome capacity has skyrocketed. And, in Ukraine, ‘robot dogs’ are patrolling the ground and autonomous drones have been launching missiles from the sky.
Does Guyana need, urgently, to consider the acquisition of missile, drone, and AI capacity that could give it military assets to counter aggression from Venezuela? Should a Minister of Defence, leading a Ministry of Defence and incorporating the National Defence Institute, be preparing policy papers for consideration by Parliament, or a select committee of Parliament? Should such issues be left to the attention of an already burdened Presidency?
In the case of Ukraine, the US Pentagon has built a new kind of coalition convening more than 50 countries from across the world to coordinate materiel donations through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group. Should Guyana be thinking of building up a Guyana Defence Contact Group?
Today’s wars, Prof. Karlin writes, “are increasingly whole of society phenomena. Focusing on boutique capabilities is short-sighted… Today’s global security environment is the most complex since the end of the Cold War”
Does Guyana merely have ‘boutique capabilities’ instead of considered defence policies and assets? Would the establishment of a Guyana Ministry of Defence help gear up Guyana to deal with the real risks of military aggression from Venezuela? These issues are deserving of urgent consideration.
