Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Below is a speech delivered by then Prime Minister Forbes Burnham during a Parliamentary Debate in July 1968 in response to Venezuela’s Decree of the Sea, claiming that the mouth of the Essequibo River to Waini Point belongs to them.
“. . .It is of interest to note that Venezuela, in the tradition of an even older imperialism, that of Greece, sought to introduce the Trojan Horse of joint development of the Essequibo region. At no time was there any possibility of acceptance of joint development of the Essequibo by the Guyana Government. At no time did the Guyana Government even give the impression — and I can only speak for the Guyana Government post-Monday, 14th December, 1964 — at no time did the Guyana Government give the slightest indication that it would accept joint development of western Essequibo. In fact, much to the contrary, the Guyana Government contended that it was not interested in any way whatsoever in joint development.
If Venezuela which is rich, if Venezuela which claims to be inspired by a feeling for its brothers and to be motivated by a deep feeling of generosity, wanted to make any contribution to our economic development programme, she was free to do so on the same basis as any other Nation or Agency has been free to do so. She cannot, so far as the Government was, and is, concerned, choose the area of development. She cannot superintend any project to which she may contribute finance or capital and at all times must the sovereignty of Guyana be protected.
We were admitting no Trojan Horse. And then, the Mixed Commission appointed a Sub-Commission and it is clear… that nowhere in the terms of reference of the Sub-Commission was it proposed that there should be joint development or that development should be limited to any particular piece of territory. The childish and petulant behaviour of this soi-disant democratic nation Venezuela — this torch bearer of Simon Bolivar, so they say, is now history.
Let us advert to Article V (2). I am not quite familiar with the intricacies of the Spanish language but I have more than a passing knowledge, I believe, of the English language, and no one but the dishonest or palpably ignorant would suggest anything else but that Article V (2) of the Geneva Agreement protects the status quo. Obviously, therefore, the statement issued by the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry in May and the advertisement in the London Times of Saturday 15th June of this year are intended (a) to frighten Guyana, and (b) I would contend, as a politician, for such I am in this House, as aggressive acts against Guyana; and the history of Venezuelan expansionist attitudes is here on the record for us to see.
For indeed, when ratifying the Treaty of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Venezuela entered a reservation with respect to the Gulf of Paria and the area between the coast of Venezuela and the island of Aruba and the Gulf of Venezuela. She was reserving her position with respect to Trinidad and Tobago. She was reserving her position with respect to Aruba and Curacao. She did not reserve her position with respect to British Guiana as it was then, because the Treaty was with respect to the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. The tortuous mind which inspired the Decree on Tuesday 9th July was obviously not of the service of those who were ratifying the Treaty to which I referred.
Ankoko is a sore, and the second half of Ankoko which is Guyanese territory was occupied in October 1966 in the teeth of a resolution of December 1965 by the Venezuelan State of Bolivar which immediately abuts Guyana to the west, setting out the eastern boundary of the State of Bolivar as running through the island of Ankoko following the map of 1905 which was signed by Venezuelan and British plenipotentiaries.
We hear today that those who trace their freedom, their liberty and independence back to Simon Bolivar, who was once succoured by the Jamaicans, never carried their arms across their borders on warlike exploits except once and that in the cause of freedom. But one must understand the semantics, one must understand the peculiar mentality of these descendants of Simon Bolivar. Venezuela may be saying that she has never indulged in warlike acts outside of her territory. She has never taken any army outside of her territory to raise war against anyone. She believes in peace forsooth, but what is to prevent the Venezuelan mind from convincing itself that to occupy western Essequibo is not to take arms outside of Venezuela on warlike exploits but merely to re-occupy that which, under their Constitution, no Government, they state, can give to anyone or any power outside of Venezuela.
We have no doubt that the situation is fraught with danger. We have no illusions. We are not prepared at this stage to accept passively and with childlike credulity the asseverations of the Venezuelan Foreign Minister and the esteemed President of the Republic of Venezuela that their nation is a peaceful nation. All terms are relative. “Peace” is relative; “war” is relative and can only be justified depending on what interest the particular act or activity may serve.
Who are our friends? Let us look at it realistically, we are told. A realistic look at the world in the second half of the twentieth century would lead one to subscribe to a remark made by a certain Russian diplomat, namely, that the world is so strange and moving so fast that no one can speak of one’s friends, but can merely speak of one’s friends of today. Friendship is a concept, I am afraid, which is chameleon in its connotation in the context of international politics. As the French say, “C’est ca.” That’s that and you cannot change it. It depends on the particular circumstance of the particular time.
One would have thought, for instance, that certain Great Powers would be the friends of the Africans in South-West Africa, but the loudest proponent of the Africans in the world among the Big Powers — and every schoolboy knows to whom I refer — refuses to sit on the South-West Africa Council but says, “No, let some smaller country like Poland go.”
Therefore, the Government of Guyana, since it does not count among the virtues a puerile naivete, never imagined the support and friendship in the context of a row would be dependent on the mere emotion of “liking” or “supporting”. It depends on the interests that are involved. We hear, “Find new friends.”
. . .I am aware that the United States of America has substantial investments in Venezuela. I am aware that the income from those investments, no doubt, in any one year, are greater than our gross domestic product. I am aware that the favourable balance of trade that Britain has with Venezuela in any given year is also greater than our gross domestic product. “Love” and “liking” are not for international politics.
Who are these new friends? Who are these friends that we must seek? I think my learned and Honourable friend, Mr. Ashton Chase, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, indeed showed a certain realism when he said that this is no doubt a matter that has to go to the United Nations, which is a forum in which we may hope to get support.
Of course, Britain was a signatory to the Geneva Agreement. Of course, a signatory is supposed to have a real and vested interest in the execution of the contractor in the upholding of the Agreement. It has been reported that I said in Britain that the British Government has an interest in the upholding of the Geneva Agreement; that I said, in my statement on Friday last [12 July], that I have communicated on behalf of the Government of Guyana to the Government of the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Georgetown.
May I at this stage say that this House certainly understand that exchanges between Governments, especially at this time when the situation is developing, and conversations between representatives of Governments cannot be discussed without inhibition or with impunity in the Parliament.
There was a press release of yesterday’s date coming from the British Foreign Office to the effect that Mr. Beith, Assistant Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, today asked the Charge d’Affaires of the Venezuelan Embassy to call at the Foreign Office to convey to him Her Majesty’s Government’s concern at certain recent developments in the dispute over her frontier with Guyana. This may appear to be not a great deal, but it has to be read carefully to be understood and appreciated fully. . .
Now, may I say this: There has been a great deal of talk in the press and perhaps there have been some unfortunate statements — unfortunately misconstrued in this House by one of the speakers today — as to what motivates Venezuela. May I as leader of a party of not insignificant size and social and political power and influence say this: so far as I am concerned, the Venezuelans have absolutely no right, either divine or by concession, to make any decision with respect to the politics of this country, who should run this country, or what social system we should have in this country.
Wherefore, let the Venezuelans understand this. I am prepared to take the word of my Honourable and learned friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chase) that his party feels the same way. Well, let us not beat the drums. There may be argument as to which is the most powerful political party, but there is no argument too that if on an issue the Opposition and the PNC agree on a position ex mero motu, that is the voice of the majority, the overwhelming majority, so let us not follow red herrings in this context. Let us not entertain ourselves and our friends with castigation, which castigation can only be justified on the basis of misinterpretation of what was said. Let us get this flotsam and jetsam out of the way when we are looking at a serious matter like this.
The Opposition, I would say, has quite rightly stated that armed invasion must not be ruled out and, therefore, when we are planning our moves, when we are having our discussions, it must be with an eye not only to what has already taken place, but the plethora of possible eventualities and I can see that armed invasion is one of those possibilities, and a strong possibility. . .
What is the purpose of sending two officials to brief, advise, and be at the side of our Permanent Representative today at a meeting of the Latin American group? I do not want to go into this matter in great detail but may I state this. The Security Council is a political body. You do not run to the Security Council by penning a letter. The Security Council is a political organisation. Is anyone here so purblind as not to recognise that the purpose of meeting with the regional groupings is to enlist support on whatever action may be decided on?
May I say immediately, since some of these matters cannot be discussed in extenso, in this forum, I plan to be always in consultation with the Opposition on what steps we take and what steps we propose, for not only have they today given evidence that we are all ad idem on this question. But in any case this is a national matter, and it is significant that the first consultation which took place on this matter did not take place as a result of any suggestion, but it took place on the initiative of the Government and I undertake that there will be further consultations because we have all got to face the music.
There are some who may say that we should not have signed the Agreement. Maybe, a confrontation may have taken place earlier but let us not worry with that. The Government and people of Guyana in the present circumstances have got to think in terms of support not merely of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USSR. It has got to think in terms of the support of the United Nations from the large range of members who are in groups. It is proposed also to hold discussions with all the groupings in the United Nations and each of these groupings there are members of the Security Council. This is a matter which I shall discuss at greater length and in greater detail with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Up to this point the Government has made no decision about setting aside the Agreement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a lawyer can understand . . . that not every time a party to a contract is in breach does the other party indulge his right to consider the contract at an end. There are at least three remedies left and the good lawyer that I know he is, the advice he would give to a client would vary with the circumstances, and until all the circumstances are known let us not rush to the conclusion that since there is a breach by one party to the Agreement the only course is to set aside the Agreement. When I meet with the Leader of the Opposition I will be able to discuss what sort of navy there is in Venezuela. This is not a frivolous matter.
We are told, “Sever diplomatic relations.” That, too, is not a matter that can be lightly decided on and in any case, the severing of diplomatic relations is the last resort. In all cases, diplomatic relations are severed almost at the moment, very frequently the moment after, there has been an outbreak of hostilities.
Refuse radio time to the Venezuelans — I agree; only I did that two months ago. That shows we are ad idem. We received a letter of protest which we treated with the courtesy and firmness which it deserved.
Have Barbados and Trinidad raise the question in the Organisation of American States — Barbados and Trinidad are sovereign nations. We cannot tell them: “You must raise it.” We have communicated with all the Commonwealth nations and more specifically and directly with the Commonwealth Caribbean nations. I can discuss with the Leader of the Opposition what is happening on this score. Certainly, he does not expect me to discuss this matter in extenso on this floor.
Involve the Opposition, we are told. That undertaking I have given and I need not say anything more about that. Today, in this House, the Opposition have moved certain amendments, all of which were settled, accepted and agreed, in consultation before they were moved.
We are agreed that Venezuela, notwithstanding whatever friendships may be at the social and personal levels, is an imperialist aggressor. We are agreed on that. Our collaboration on this question is indeed an anti-imperialist exercise. . .
In the final analysis, even if we have no friends with weapons, or prepared to supply us with weapons, or assist us with weapons, we the Guyanese people have faith in ourselves, and come the Venezuelans, for every thousand blows, we shall be prepared to deal one death blow, and even if we have to die, we shall die, not like hogs, but like men.”
Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, 17th July 1968.
