By Neville J. Bissember
Like a harbinger of doom your editorial of 12 January 2025 entitled “Danger,” warned of an ‘unnerving’ idea of President Nicolas Maduro’s administration, to hold regional elections in the ‘state of Guayana Esequiba’ later this year. The editorial rightly terms the announcement of this figment of the imagination of someone in Caracas – what Derek Walcott refers to in “Dream on Monkey Mountain” as ‘a banana of the mind’ – as ‘an astonishing declaration’. For me, this is as unthinkable as if the US President were to announce the holding of local elections in Canada, a sovereign country which he would like to make the 51st State of the United States of America – never mind as to how this eventuality would come to pass!
In late 2023, we were treated to the spectacle of Venezuela conducting a referendum on the Essequibo – what I had at the time termed ‘annexation by referendum’ – all remotely from beyond the territorial confines of Guyana. Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan economic migrants who find themselves in Guyana – to the extent that they are fleeing the severe economic hardship in their homeland which has persisted for close to a decade now – would not voluntarily submit to an electoral exercise, the result of which would be to return them to being administered by the authorities in Caracas: it would quite simply defeat the purpose of them having to remove themselves in the first place from those harsh conditions.
It is I believe a truism that organising the holding of any elections in the Essequibo that are not sanctioned by our own GECOM (biometrics or no biometrics) cannot be undertaken without plunging the Caribbean Region into a state of tension and conflict, thereby shaking to the foundations our cherished status of being a Zone of Peace. Hopefully all of our friends in CARICOM would be able to see the forest for the trees and join with other Latin American, hemispheric and indeed global power houses, in offering resistance to such intentions coming to fruition, as well as diplomatic and material support for our principled historical and legal position on the Essequibo. The question is, how is this desired outcome to be achieved?
According to your editorial, ‘…Mr Maduro has no respect for international law or the UN Charter…’. To the contrary, Venezuela would have the international community believe the complete opposite, so much so that it has been the Chairman of the “Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter” at the United Nations in New York, since the Group’s inception in July 2021.
According to Wikipedia, ‘The main goal of the grouping is to issue a message in support of the United Nations founding treaty [the Charter]…seeking to promote multilateralism and diplomacy over the use of force against perceived violations from other Member States’. The March 2021 concept note for the Group referred to ‘a growing resort to…arbitrary actions…[and] unilateral coercive measures’. It is no wonder that we are cautioned not to believe everything one reads on the internet!
Venezuela is the founding Member of the Group of Friends of the Charter! It counts among its membership Russia, China, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua and Syria. From Latin America and the Caribbean, only two countries are included, namely Bolivia and our sister CARICOM state, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Rather than rely on an unreliable source for information on this grouping, we can rely instead on the more authoritative statement of 4th November 2024 made by H.E. Samuel Moncada, Ambassador of Venezuela to the UN and Chairman of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter. This statement was made under the General Assembly Agenda Item on “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations, and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organisation” (a Committee which I was asked by the Latin American and Caribbean Group in New York to be Vice-Chair in 1994).
Said the distinguished Venezuelan Ambassador, ‘The Group of Friends considers the Charter of the United Nations to be a landmark and a true act of faith in the best of humanity. It is a code of conduct that has governed international relations between states for the past 79 years, based on timeless principles, such as, the sovereign equality of states, self-determination, non-interference in the internal affairs of States and refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. These are basic norms and principles which, in addition to being the foundation of international law, remain today as relevant as they were back in 1945.’
His Excellency continued: ‘Moreover we believe that ensuring compliance with and strict adherence to both the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations is fundamental to ensuring the realization of the three pillars of the Organization, as well as to advancing towards the establishment of a more peaceful and prosperous world and a truly just and equitable world order’.
In other words those Members of the UN listening in New York to the distinguished Ambassador of Venezuela would be hard pressed to conceive that the country which he represents, as a “friend” of the Charter – indeed the Chairman of such a group – would mass troops at the border with an unaggressive neighbouring country; hold a referendum on the status of a part of Guyana, an internationally-recognised sovereign territory; appoint a “governor” for such territory; build a bridge across a waterway onto the sovereign territory of that neighbouring state; announce the intention to hold regional elections in respect of said territory; or declare its rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, or a decision of the Court, for that matter.
Suffice to say that in as much as Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends declares that ‘…ensuring compliance with and strict adherence to both the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations’ is fundamental, that document contains in Article 94 a legal obligation for compliance with decisions of the ICJ. The Statute of the ICJ, which is annexed to the Charter, is declared in Article 92 to form ‘an integral part of the present Charter’; in other words, when Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Charter declares its respect for the Charter, it likewise declares its respect for the Statute of the Court.
But for those countries represented in New York far removed by geography from the situation on the ground here in the Caribbean – the internet and social media notwithstanding – they could, with respect, be easily wooed into believing that it is Guyana, not Venezuela that is the aggressor in the centuries-old controversy. They would condemn your editorial which says Mr. Maduro is disrespectful of international law and the UN Charter. Indeed they would think it inconceivable that a country that holds itself out to the international community as a friend and champion of the Charter (and the annexed Statute of the ICJ) could be in violation of so many of its fundamental tenets and underlying principles.
Here I turn to my diplomatic experience and share what is my favourite definition of a diplomat: someone who would tell you to go to hell and you would look forward to getting there! A panelist who appeared with me at a forum organized by UG Vice Chancellor Dr. Paloma Mohamed-Martin in late 2023, more directly declared that you shouldn’t believe what a diplomat says. I would nuance that by adding ‘everything’ after ‘believe’; sometimes you simply have to. However the answer, my friends, is blowing somewhere in between the two approaches…
The Trinbagonians have a phrase for this, it is called “Take in Front”: according to the website “Trini in Xisle”, it means to ‘act or say something in your own interest or defence before someone else can use the same point against you’. It is similar to what we in Guyana would refer to as “wrong and strong” (on display on a daily basis by uncouth drivers on our roadways).
Our neighbours to the West seem to have done just that; in other words, as champions and defenders of the UN Charter, they would want you to believe that they could not possibly have done what Guyana is asserting to the international community. Guyana, they would assert – notwithstanding its small (but well trained) army, with its one helicopter and few small boats – must be the aggressor, against a country which is listed as having one of the most powerful military capabilities, if not the largest, in South America!
Diplomats (and politicians too) are expert at this art of the “boogaloo”. In fact, in the face of a well oiled and resourced public relations machinery, Venezuela has been mounting an effective campaign against Guyana’s principled position, which is well grounded in the history, the facts and the law. Otherwise, why would they have been so hesitant until recently, to submit the issue to third party adjudication, if their cause is so righteous and just?
I recall that some years ago, I visited a country where a diplomatic colleague was able to take me to see the extent of poverty there, with people even living in cemeteries – not what would normally be included in the guided tours. I was therefore astonished when I found out that that same country would be host of an international conference on population and development later that very year! Again, if you ask the Russians how the war in Ukraine started, they would tell you they did not invade Ukraine, but rather they mounted a “special military operation”, in defence of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainians of Russian origin who were living there (the 47th President of the United States has now added a new spin to how the war started).
In the absence of an effective and sustained push-back from Guyana, Venezuela has been building points in the court of public opinion within international circles, making it more difficult for Guyana to defend its case. In fact a more recent SN editorial (18 February) proposes that the ‘[T]he local media [which] must be empowered to stand as the first line of defence for Guyana’s territorial claims…’
Is it the recommendation of this second editorial that we must now look to a group of journalists – inexperienced, like most of our politically appointed Heads of Missions, in the cut and thrust of international politics, and the ebb and flow of diplomacy, whether multilateral or bilateral – to fashion a response to our aggressive neighbours? To this I say two things: firstly, it is to the years of experience of those who were long in the trenches of our national thrust on defending us against those same territorial claims – Major General (Ret) Joe Singh and Mr. Rashleigh Jackson come readily to mind – that the mantra that diplomacy (not journalism) must be our first line of defence became embedded in my sub-conscious as a young diplomat. Secondly, the court of public opinion is not entitled to know the entirety of actions and outcomes of what Guyana is doing as regards our territorial sovereignty; there is no obligation for ‘actively presenting updates and [certainly not] strategic plans to the public’.
Just as how journalists jealously guard their sources, the military and security forces are forever sharing information on a “need to know basis”. Similarly, successful outcomes in foreign policy are often achieved through “quiet diplomacy”, including back channel talks and third party mediation: how many of us knew in 2023 – while President Maduro was rattling his sabres and our citizens, especially those in Region One, were preparing for the worst – that a diplomatic initiative was in the works to de-escalate tensions and avert any use of force by Caracas, as the desired outcome of the deftly arranged Argyle talks?
So, with the above being said, and in the words of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov – aka V.I. Lenin – What is to be Done? Takuba Lodge needs to embark expeditiously on a carefully strategized campaign which would aim to focus primarily on contrasting the statements made by the Venezuelan Chairman of the Group of Friends of the Charter in New Work with the aggressive posture emanating from Caracas, which disregards the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana.
It should be clarified that this posture has implications for regional and international security, account being taken inter alia of the relatively close proximity of countries in the Region, the presence of Russian military personnel and the manufacture of Iranian drones in our neighbour to the West, and the long reach of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, recently designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration.
In a pincer movement carried out by the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Secretary, the diplomatic outreach needs to target various international fora and capitals – the OAS, SICA, the ACS, the AU, the OIC, the OACPS (now reportedly on life support in Brussels), the UN Secretary General, the EU High Representative. Capitals like Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Jakarta, Pretoria, New Dehli, Oslo, Brasilia, Havana, Canberra, Yaounde and Nairobi should be asked to receive such high-level visitors. For such a campaign to be effective two things need to happen: i) a Brief needs to be prepared for our spokesperson(s) along with more succinct speaking notes and a more detailed dossier to be left behind for further information. Secondly, it requires all (diplomatic) hands on deck; it is my experience that some among our diplomatic corps may be labouring under the mistaken assumption that the response to the threat from Venezuelan aggression is to be articulated exclusively by our Missions in Caracas and New York.
Guyana should request an urgent meeting of the CARICOM Council for Foreign and Community Relations with an appropriate one-item agenda addressing the threat to the status of the Caribbean as Zone of Peace. One desirable outcome would be the establishment of a monitoring mechanism on this status – another “Group of Friends” if you wish, but this one charged with overseeing the maintenance of peace and security in the Caribbean.
Finally, as stated earlier by my senior colleague and friend Dr. Bertie Ramcharan, Guyana should use its position on the Security Council to good advantage and arrange a special session on Peace and Security in the Region, to be addressed by His Excellency the President and the Chairman of CARICOM (the focus of Dr. Ramcharan’s proposed UNSC meeting, primarily on the ICJ, could be blended with my proposal). And building on the outcome of the COFCOR Special Meeting, the Chairman of Conference should invite President Maduro to come and sit and roll up his sleeves and break bread with the Heads of Government at the next CARICOM Summit in July, where he can explain to the grouping that he has no intention to violate the Region’s cherished status of a Zone of Peace…or does he…
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=67c27a24ae4e42bc9f67565d03c2d6bb&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabroeknews.com%2F2025%2F02%2F25%2Ffeatures%2Fguyana-should-remind-the-international-community-that-venezuela-is-chairman-of-the-group-of-friends-of-the-un-charter%2F&c=5510016150888702107&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2025-02-24 11:00:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
