There seems to be a major disconnect between State House and Freedom House. Not so long after the Government’s most recent diplomatic faux pas with its rushed abandonment of, and speedy retraction in favour of, Guyana’s age old ‘One China Policy’ due to its blundered decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Government of Taiwan, the Government of Guyana is at it again, only this time, it seems to be heading in the direction of a military faux pas. Indeed, there sems to be some twiddling of thumbs between State House and Freedom House!
On Thursday, 11th February 2021, in his inaugural address to Guyana’s Parliament, President Ali announced his Government’s decision to establish a “border patrol unit” via special legislation that is being drafted. Importantly, earlier on the said Thursday morning, while addressing the GDF Annual Officers Conference, in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, no mention was made to the nation’s defence officers about the establishment of any border patrol unit. Quite surprisingly, in that address, the Commander in Chief also announced to the GDF Officers, a new Defence Policy for the nation. These two recent decisions are real cause for concern since, there are current constitutional structures that deal with what the President and Commander in Chief seems to believe needs to be dealt with by new legislation and new policy. Proceeding in this manner, in our view, will create more confusion and cause unnecessary tension and morale deficit within the Guyana Defence Force.
Article 197A (1) of Guyana’s constitution establishes the issue of defence policy thusly: “The State’s defence and security policy shall be to defend national independence, preserve the country’s sovereignty and integrity, and guarantee the normal functioning of institutions and the security of citizens against any armed aggression”. That there is any clearer language is undisputed. The constitution has clearly set out a threefold mission for the Guyana Defence Force and a twofold mission for the Guyana Police Force. Consequently, over the decades and, to the satisfaction of successive governments, the primary mission of Guyana Defence Force was, and continues to be, preserving the country’s sovereignty and integrity, which the Force has executed and continues to execute through, among other actions, active, passive, interdictive and, where necessary, offensive patrols.
However, to put this matter of border patrols into proper perspective, one only has to remember that prior to the seizure by Venezuela, sometime in 1965, of Guyana’s half of the Ankoko island, a critical boundary marker that separates Guyana from Venezuela, the GDF was a capital bound force, satisfying the dictates of the British colonial establishment. The new state of Guyana had to deal with this most urgent matter, and it dealt with it condignly. The GDF was transformed from a ‘spit and polish’ army into a combat force and deployed to the country’s borders to define aggression and maintain sovereignty and integrity. It has been doing that since. Defending the borders, land air and sea, is the GDF’s main mission. So, there must be something wrong with the thinking of the Commander in Chief to create de novo what has already been established and functioning.
There is no clarity on what the Commander in Chief means by the word, ‘border’, but in the context of national defence, it includes land, air and sea. To this, the Commander in Chief is also reminded that Guyana has had a more comprehensive border integrity profile, compliments of adequate resources in the past, to the extent that the Force had connected its land border, through patrols to border locations between Waini and Aishalton; its maritime border, through patrols in its Exclusive Economic Zone; and its air border connecting all of its border locations through surveillance flights.
Any reasonable mind will therefore ask, what would be the duties of this proposed new border patrol unit? Who will command it? Where will it reside? And will it be constitutional? To the last question, it is clear that establishing a legal entity to do what the GDF is already constitutionally mandated to do would be unconstitutional. More importantly, it sends a very bad message to the members of the GDF, who might be thinking that it is being marginalized, diminished or put aside. Further, the government will remember that it had offered, post 1992- the Costa Rican model of not having a standing army, but instead a National Border Unit, to which the GDF argued would be detrimental to a country like Guyana, with active border claims from two of its principal neighbours. The government retreated from that position. We must now wonder if this is the Costa Rica model, 2.0 and reloaded.
Article 197A (5) further goes on to say that disciplined forces commissions may be constituted by the National Assembly to examine matters relating to defence or security in an effort “to promote their greater efficiency”. If they are concerns and a desire to promote greater efficiency within the Defence Force, as in the past, then President Ali can easily establish a disciplined forces commission. Additionally, the President also has at his disposal, albeit through reporting only, the parliamentary sectoral committee that deals with defence and security. There is therefore no shortage of constitutional direction and institutions to enable the President and Commander in Chief to examine and promote the efficiency of the nation’s defence and security.
President Ali’s remarks to the GDF Annual Officers Conference promising to recapitalize the Defence Force and his speech to the National Parliament do not add up. Something seems afoot. The Defence Policy is clear! The organization enforcing this policy is clear! What is missing are the necessary resources to be effective. The President of Guyana has to be very careful that his unilateral adumbrated action to establish, by legislation, a border patrol unit does not further exacerbate the wounds of division and suspicion of military side-lining and neutralizing, in our dear nation. If this is the advice of the new advisor on national security, the President should fire him forthwith and pivot to constitutional actions. The historical bi-partisan support for the GDF as Guyana’s premier defence and security organization must continue.
There seems to be the twiddling of thumbs between State House and Freedom House, which will not redound to the defence and security of our nation.
