It is clear that there needs to be a parliamentary committee set up in relation to the Venezuela border controversy as soon as possible. If the PPP/C returns to Parliament tomorrow, as has been indicated, then budgetary matters aside, a frontiers committee should be a priority for the government. Perhaps within that context a less testy relationship between the parties can be cultivated in relation to this one issue, and the opposition might be able to avoid giving public expression to some of its more foolish pronouncements, such as the one of which it divested itself last week.
In that statement, while the PPP reiterated its position that the 1899 Award which settled the land border between Guyana and Venezuela was definitive, it went on to say that the maritime boundary “remained an issue to be settled between the two countries and will require dialogue.” In addition, the party expressed the view that “differences on one issue should not be to the detriment of building strong neighbourly relations in other areas such as trade and other people to people relations.”
It went on to digress on the fact that our continent has many border issues, but that this did not prevent Unasur from being formed, or trade relations from being maintained. Freedom House, of course, has no inhibitions about drawing faulty analogies, but also, it seems, no scruples about promulgating false accusations, such as implying that the loss of the rice market in Venezuela could be laid at the door of the coalition. This is despite the fact that it was on its watch that it was told the rice agreement would not be renewed, although it never made that fact public at the time. Having said that, however, it must be emphasized that the end of the rice deal had nothing to do with either the current government or the previous one, and everything to do with what was going on in the minds of those who rule in Caracas. As such, therefore, the PPP should recognize that it is inappropriate, if not dangerous to try and score petty political points on matters of this nature.
After some more fatuous remarks, Freedom House arrived at the crux of its presentation, namely, that there should be dialogue between the two states “so that normalcy in relations can be restored while the UN process addresses the controversy once and for all.” It did advert to Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge’s comments that there would be no meeting between Presidents Maduro and Granger, without reference to the latter’s mitigating statements in that regard, but perhaps the PPP release had already been issued before then.
What the PPP does not seem to have grasped is that what Guyana does or does not do will not affect Venezuela’s aggressive disposition. Miraflores is marching to its own drum, and there will be no restoration of “normalcy” in relations any time soon. In the first place, it seems to have escaped the attention of the party that Caracas’s absurd maritime claims are premised on a renewal of its territorial claims and a rejection of the 1899 Award. In fact the latter appears to be the focus of its current attention in its drive to promote its case to all and sundry.
Last week, for example, its Foreign Minister and Vice President were touring Caricom nations promoting their cause and possibly lobbying for pressure to be put on Guyana for Presidents Granger and Maduro to meet. Mr Maduro, it seems, is very anxious for that to happen, and has already told the Venezuelan media he would be meeting his Guyanese counterpart for bilateral talks on the margins of the UN General Assembly next month. (The two may also be present at Mr Bouterse’s inauguration in Suriname this week, and if so, Mr Maduro would clearly want a bilateral there.) While Mr Greenidge’s utterances on the subject were somewhat bald, his sentiments are correct: it is true that there is nothing for the two leaders to discuss. Caracas is making all the demands in the most belligerent fashion possible, and Guyana has nothing to concede. It may be too that the Venezuelan Head of State is looking for any remark from the Guyanese President that he could hang on to and twist for propaganda purposes at home.
The PPP for its part has not recognized that there is great risk in any bilateral discussion; the controversy is an issue which comes under the auspices of the Geneva Agreement of 1966, and at the present time any talks should take place through the agency of the UN Secretary General.
The second thing which the PPP does not appear to have grasped is the desperate plight that Venezuela is in at the moment. Even if, for the sake of argument, the Venezuelans were to issue Essequibians with ID cards – although whether this would automatically qualify them to settle in Venezuela was not really clarified – patriotic issues aside, it is difficult to see anyone here wanting them. The economy is in a downward spiral – there were food riots in San Felix last week – and economists are warning of hyperinflation. There is a shortage of many basic commodities, and the government’s policies are simply aggravating the situation.
In addition, there is political repression because a parliamentary election is coming up in the beginning of December, and Mr Maduro and his associates fear they might lose it. There are fractures even within the chavista movement created by the late president Hugo Chávez, and the current President’s approval rating has sunk to an all-time low. In short, Venezuela is unstable, and the hostile posture in relation to Guyana is designed to force a concession from us which can be sold in triumphant terms to a discontented populous. Alternatively, if that doesn’t happen, it will at least create a distraction to divert attention from the current crisis, and unify the people against an external ‘foe’.
In addition, Miraflores wants Guyana to give way on the matter of the Good Officer process; above all else they do not want the controversy to go to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, as this country is seeking. The reason is that they have every reasonable expectation of losing the case. (It might be mentioned in passing that it was the previous government which registered its public dissatisfaction with the Good Offices process, and expressed a preference for going to The Hague. The present administration has also adopted this line, so there is no distinction between the two parties where this particular policy is concerned.)
Exactly what is going to happen in Venezuela is very difficult to predict from this side of the Amakura, but the PPP no less than the government should be sensitive to the possibility of developments there which could put us in greater jeopardy than we might seem to be at present. One can only hope that Takuba Lodge is engaged in some serious contingency planning in relation to a variety of possible eventualities. In the meantime, the government has been somewhat dilatory in mounting a campaign to educate the citizenry on the controversy; the current generation has very little understanding of the details. This is something in which the PPP too has an important role to play, especially in respect of its own constituency; after all, this is not about any political party, it is about the nation.
