Dear Editor,
Venezuela conceded nothing in the Argyle Declaration, while Guyana seems satisfied: 1. that Venezuela’s rejection of the ICJ was simply ‘noted’ in a meeting that included several CARICOM Heads of State, an official from Brazil, and the UN SG’s representative. 2. That there will be further talks outside of the ICJ (just as Venezuela wanted). 3. With a rejection of open, hot, conflict (when in fact Venezuela had no intention anyway of attempting a military invasion). 4. With a possible de-escalation in rhetoric while Venezuela continues with its plans (for occupation and administrative takeover of our Essequibo?). 5. With an affirmation of the primacy of the Geneva Agreement without any reference to the 1899 Arbitral Award and its validity (even in the things that were ‘noted’). 6. With the formal insertion into the process of two great socialists, Gonsalves and Lula, who have natural affinities to Maduro’s putative ideology and who naturally distrust any potential security role – anticipated and even preferred by Guyana – for the US in the region.
Context is everything, so for good measure I should add that the presence in the room of offending maps was not even “noted” either, informally or formally. In a Guardian article titled “Guyana warns Venezuela’s Maduro he risks becoming pariah ahead of talks,” Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Hugh Todd, is reported to have said: “It’s not a case whereby we are both compliant and there are matters that we can put on the table that can allow us to have a win-win situation. This is a zero-sum game for President Maduro. This is someone who is blatantly violating the international rule of law. He has to pull himself and his administration in line and that is our position.”
Todd seems to be saying that because Venezuela is flouting norms of international law, there would be no consideration of cooperation at the talks, but that the talks would necessarily entail zero-sum payoffs, where one side would win at the other’s expense. What doesn’t make sense is for Todd to assume that the zero-sum payoffs will apply only to Maduro, because if we are talking zero-sum, we must wonder if the Argyle Declaration that involved no concession by Venezuela was a loss for Guyana. My suggestion is that we consider what Toni Morrison might ask: Whose eyes, whose gaze, whose language, was controlling the talks? Contrary to what stares us in the face (i.e., the six points noted above), we must now pay attention to the meanings that were signaled by the Argyle Declaration. We must now craft smart responses to the Argyle Declaration, and not regard it as a victory.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Singh
