Latest update December 12th, 2024 1:00 AM
Aug 02, 2008 AFC Column, Features / Columnists
The Guyanese public was recently treated to a most interesting sight of the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Commodore Gary Best, being bestowed with the Medal Star of Carabobo, on the 24th July, 2008, by the Ambassador of the Venezuela.
The medal itself given in honour of the triumphs of Simon Bolivar is a prestigious one and is to be considered of very high standing.
However, there was something about this ceremony that set me thinking and in fact left me uncomfortable. I am sure that Commodore Best is very deserving of all medals coming his way, but whether it was prudent for the Government of Guyana to permit such a medal to be awarded is a question which remains unanswered.
Looked at conversely, would President Chavez have allowed his top General to be given a medal by our Ambassador in Caracas, knowing the intricacies and complexities surrounding our border controversy?
I wondered immediately about the incidents in October, 2006 when Guyanese Parasram Persaud was killed by the Venezuelan military at Eteringbang, and in November, 2007, when two Guyanese dredges were blown to smithereens by the Venezuelan military in a show of force.
To date, the family of Persaud and the owners of the dredges have not been compensated, and the expected reports following investigations were never delivered.
In accepting military honours and medals we must be able to reconcile these latest incidents, and those over the years, of which Ankoko should be a constant reminder.
I therefore am forced to ask whether this new energy we are seeing in Venezuelan diplomatic activity is part of a plan to lead to a negotiated settlement, or to an entrenchment of the claim to Essequibo.
I am all for the settlement of our controversy and welcome the signs of progress that we see since Hugo Chavez’s ascension to the presidency.
Commencing with his visit to Guyana in 2004 and followed by his pronouncements that he wished to see the matter resolved.
Only recently, we have had the small but profoundly powerful contribution made to the distressed farmers of Buxton following the destruction of their farmlands.
I thought that this gesture made a powerful political statement given the trivial and “cass cass” manner that our Government was dealing with the issue of depravation following the razing of the backlands.
Since then we have the announcements that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is proposing the installation of an oil pipeline in Guyana for our benefit, the reiteration of the intention to build a road linking the two countries, and the “no objection” offered to Guyana’s proposal to have a British organisation develop environmental programmes in a large portion of the Essequibo in exchange for financial aid.
These are very welcome and promising developments that show a ray of hope that our long and debilitating controversy may be resolved during my lifetime.
Past incidents and the ongoing geo-political maneuverings, however, necessitate that I temper my expectations and make caution my watchword.
A report on what are Venezuela’s true intentions sheds light on the issues and the contradictions that Guyana can find itself in if not careful, and I believe that certain extracts are worthy of publication in the interest of freedom of information:
PIPELINE
Laying the pipeline would provide economic benefits to Guyana. It would create jobs for Guyanese in land preparation and the construction process.
It would also create jobs for the security and maintenance of the pipeline. Concomitantly, oil supplies by Venezuela to Guyana to fuel its industrial sector, would be ready and swift.
The problem is, what will be Venezuela’s share of the employment, during and after. Is it likely that some or many of the before may be likely to remain in Guyana as a deliberate strategy?
How many Venezuelans would be employed after, and would the plan to maintain security of the pipeline be Venezuelans in the main?
Would they be members of the Venezuelan National Guard, fully armed with weapons from Venezuela? What modern military weapons and patrol vehicles would they place in Guyana?
There is an even graver concern. Intervention in sovereign countries to protect investment and nationals has been a pattern of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
History is replete with examples, one of the latest being the U.S. military invasion of Grenada on the pretext of protecting its investment and U.S. citizens there when in fact, the real reason was the overthrow of the socialist/communist government on the island.
Venezuela could always manufacture a pretext to intervene in Guyana to protect its pipeline and to thereby seize and occupy Essequibo, the territory of Guyana it is spuriously claiming. Beware of the Greeks bearing gifts.
HIGHWAY
The proposed highway from Venezuela to Guyana would benefit Guyana in many ways. It would open the vast western hinterland to farming, fisheries, forestry and mineral development.
Given Guyana’s small population and lack of capital, it would be obvious to conclude that Venezuela would be the major, if not only, beneficiary of the highway, given the size of its population and its enormous treasury of oil revenue. Very few Guyanese would want to live in the interior.
The majority would want to migrate to North America and greener pastures, and even to Venezuela itself.
Venezuela would no doubt offer sotto voce citizenship to Guyanese in the Essequibo on the basis that they are by geography de facto citizens.
The reality is that many Venezuelans, ordinary and corporate citizens, would be crossing over to Essequibo, while many Guyanese would be hoofing it to Venezuela, become Venezuelan citizens and then be encouraged to return to the Essequibo to re-settle as dual citizens, but supporting Venezuela.
The reality also is that Guyana does not have the administrative and security capacity to fully monitor movements of people and material from Venezuela into Guyana.
At the same time, Venezuela is also noticing the plethora of Brazilians who are crossing from Brazil into Guyana via the porous, unsecured and unguarded southern border.
There are an estimated 60,000 Brazilians in the southern and mid-area of Guyana involved in mining and other activities.
The newly opened bridge across the Takatu River connecting Brazil to Guyana is increasing the flow of Brazilians.
The Venezuelans want to take a page out of Brazil’s land grab and legally or illegally occupy the east with its own citizens while Brazil aggrandises itself in the south.
Brazil has a population of some 200 million and Venezuela, some 25 million. Guyana has about 850,000. Slowly but surely, while Guyana is looking north and not south or west, Brazil is looking north at Guyana’s land and resources and is moving in. Venezuela is looking east at Essequibo and also wants to move in.
Venezuela’s master plan seems to be to occupy the Essequibo in a civilian way as opposed to a military posture. The highway is the foundation of the plan. “Beware of the Greeks bearing gifts.”
This report makes much sense and leads me to conclude that before any road or pipeline is allowed to pass through Guyana there must be a renunciation of the claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s land in a formal manner both at the level of the Venezuelan Government, and internationally. The Jagdeo Government had better not make any fatal mistakes.
Dec 12, 2024
Kaieteur Sports- Team Guyana is set to begin their campaign at the 2024 FIBA 3×3 AmeriCup tournament today with back-to-back matches against Haiti and the Cayman Islands in Group A qualifiers....Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In the movie, Saturday Night Fever, Tony Manero‘s boss offers him a raise after he... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The election of a new Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS),... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]