By meeting with President Maduro Guyana’s President has opened up the once closed doors to diplomacy

Dec 20, 2023 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Ever since Guyana and Venezuela cosigned the “Argyle Agreement” the terms and conditions in the document continue to generate ex-post examinations and analyses in the press, social media, and chat platforms. As one would have rightly predicted, some praised the agreement, others did not. This led a friend to facetiously remark that, “the postmortem began before the ink even dried on the paper.” Before I had time to mull over my friend’s comment, reactions to the Agreement in the form of text messages, articles, and social media posts began to ‘ding’ my phone practically every few seconds – a pattern that continued for three days.

Upon reading and rereading most of my phone messages, I noticed that while some praised President Irfaan for his diplomacy others criticized him for accepting the invitation to confer with Maduro. By meeting with Maduro, critics claim that President Irfaan has given legitimacy to Maduro’s territorial claims. This appears to be a myopic and ill-informed conceptualization of the trappings of political leadership and diplomacy, especially when we take into consideration the following. By meeting with Maduro, President Irfaan Ali has signaled to the world – and especially Venezuelans, other Latin American and Caribbean residents – his willingness to dialogue with President Maduro for purposes of ensuring a peaceful coexistence. This is clearly evidenced in Statement # 3 of the Argyle Agreement in which Venezuela and Guyana openly expressed their commitments to “peaceful coexistence and … unity.”

Had President Irfaan refused to meet with President Maduro, it would have signaled Guyana’s unwillingness to peaceful coexistence. Such unwillingness could have served as fodder for Maduro’s aggression and mobilization efforts, and increasingly grant legitimacy to the Venezuelan’s leader propaganda campaign that Guyana is the aggressor, and that Essequibo needs to be annexed by force. But, as we have seen in Statement #1 of the Argyle Agreement, by meeting with each other, both the President of Guyana and the President of Venezuela agreed not to “threaten or use force against one another.”

By meeting with President Maduro, the Guyanese President was able to secure a minimum of “three months” delay of any aggressive action by the Venezuelan leader. Realistically, President Irfaan could not have accomplished this postponement of aggression in absentia. Face-to-face communication provides for better discourse and understanding between participants – albeit gradual. This is clear from Statement # 9 in the Argyle Agreement, which stipulates that Guyana and Venezuela agree to meet again in Brazil “to consider any matter with implications for the territory in dispute.”

Given President Maduro’s disavowal of the International Court of Appeals (ICJ) ruling in favor of Guyana’s request for a resolution of the border dispute, it is presumptuous to assume that the Venezuelan leader would have voluntarily ceased to mobilize his military – one superior to that of Guyana’s – from incrementally advancing into the Essequibo region had he not met with President Irfaan. Indeed, there are deterrence to Venezuela’s aggression such as the U.S-Guyana military training, but for how long, and how frequent will such cooperative activity continue?

Furthermore, we cannot predict President Maduro’s reaction when the ICJ issues its final ruling on the Essequibo border dispute, especially since he repeatedly announced his disregard for the ICJ. Given the fact that President Irfaan has already demonstrated a willingness to have face-to-face discussions with the Venezuelan leader, would this not indicate to Venezuelans that their leader is the one against peaceful coexistence – if Maduro proceeds to act aggressively? Also, will this not enable opposition leaders to mobilize Venezuelans resistance against their leader? The answers await.

No one can claim to have a clinical understanding into the workings of President Maduro’s psyche, his autocratic proclivities, or his true ambitions and motivations. Neither can one claim to understand the extent to which Venezuelans support, or reject, their leader’s call for the aggressive/violent annexation of the Essequibo region. However, what is known, is that by meeting in face-to-face discussions with the Venezuelan leader, President Irfaan succeeded in securing certain concessions while opening the once closed doors to further dialogue, diplomacy, and hopefully a peaceful resolution of the Essequibo region’s territorial claim.

In sum, it is important to emphasize, and re-emphasize, that diplomacy takes time, and often appears to drag on for a lengthy period. Yet, it is a truism that the first step to the resolution of any problem between adversaries is frank and free discourse. President Irfaan has taken a worthy first step, let’s await the results of future dialogue/discussions, for statement # 9 of the Argyle Agreement assures us that the door to diplomacy now remains open.

Regards,

Narayan Persaud, PhD

Professor Emeritus.

---

• Guyanese, Narayan Persaud, PhD, President Irfaan, Professor Emeritus

---