Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to the statement in the Sunday Stabroek news item titled ‘Venezuela plotted overthrow, kidnap of Jagan in 1964, US document says’ (July 26). I am not a correspondent to Stabroek News. I do not work for nor do I have any relationship with Stabroek News. I am a mere letter-writer. In fact, the news item carried by SN was taken from a letter
I submitted to SN but which was not published by SN. Those claiming this is a dead non-issue long past and of no significance because it was never set into motion miss the significance of this matter as to why we are here today in this quagmire and why it still applies to today’s realities. It shows that Venezuela has the potential to seditiously plot against Guyana. It shows that Venezuela could play our ethnic and other divisions as well as exploit the weaknesses of our leaders. Venezuela’s recent actions (territorial claim, planned ID card issuance, etc), the ripe anti-Americanism of the PPP in the past two decades, the close relationship the PPP enjoyed with Venezuela during its rule and the recent utterances of high-profile PPP members on the Venezuela question (notably Mr Peter Ramsaroop’s recent letter and Mr Rohee’s foolish comments), suggest that those yawning at this 1964 event should pay attention to their history before they are doomed to repeat it. Just as easily as the Venezuelans might have approached Forbes Burnham and Peter D’Aguiar, they could approach any political leadership today.
For all its condemnations by the PPP, any examination of the declassified US documents on Guyana during the Cold War period generally shows tremendous restraint, balance and fairness by the US on the Venezuela question. The US largely refused to take sides and even when faced with the prospect of an independent communist state under the PPP in the 1960s, it rejected Venezuela’s plot intended to overthrow the democratically elected government. In fact, the USA’s rejection of Venezuela’s plot on the basis that it would prefer to allow the democratic electoral route to engineer the change it sought was an act that saved Guyana.
Those questioning whether the incident occurred should read the report itself. High level discussion among the US Ambassador in Venezuela, the Venezuelan Minister of Interior, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (Tyler) to Secretary of State Rusk took place.
Venezuela was the closest regional ally of the US at the time. Venezuela would not lie to an ally and a defender of its regime. The actors, participants and sources strongly suggest the event was in motion. The report from the Assistant Secretary stated “A report from Georgetown advises that a person with good contacts in Venezuela is urging Burnham and D’Aguiar to form a ‘Revolutionary Government’; attempt a coup with the assistance of 100 trained men who will have had 30 days special training in Venezuela, and at the same time Cheddi and Janet Jagan will be kidnapped and taken to Venezuela.”
Venezuela remains united on this border controversy. We cannot say the same for Guyana. That has to change in a hurry. For this reason, it is important for these snippets of history to be revealed to shake this country up in understanding that our own internal fractures are as threatening as Venezuela’s external sabre-rattling.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
Editor’s note
The word ‘correspondent’ has two different glosses: the first is a letter-writer, and the second is someone retained by a newspaper (although not a member of the permanent staff) to write regularly for them. The difference in meaning in a print media setting is conveyed by the preposition which follows the noun, namely, a correspondent to the paper would be a letter-writer, while a correspondent for the paper would be someone who reports for it from time to time. As Mr Maxwell rightly says, he does not work for Stabroek News; however, we did not suggest that he did, describing him as a “correspondent to” the paper.
We did not publish the earlier letter by Mr Maxwell to which he refers, because it contained major factual inaccuracies.
