Today, Thursday, December 13, 2023, the heads of states of Guyana, President Irfaan Ali, and Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro are meeting in St Vincent and the Grenadines. They will be accompanied by bureaucrats and other government officials. It is expected that journalists will cover the event, and the entire world waits with bated breath for the results. Such meetings and dialogues are basic but fundamental to international relations, particularly in the face of conflicts or adversarial relationships between and/ or among states.
However, there is an ever-growing number of critics, who ask if such events are good for countries especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between nations whether economically, militarily or otherwise. Nevertheless, such meetings have become an ordinary fact of life in modern international politics. They are not a new invention but as old as the history of mankind. Most history textbooks tell of events where emperors, kings, or chiefs came together, in bilateral meetings or within the framework of multilateral conferences or conventions, to settle disputes or make peace. As well, such meetings were also sadly noted in the past for missed opportunities to reach agreements. And it is only in more recent times that such meetings are no longer extraordinary or special events. They have instead become a common tendency in international politics.
Some might recall the meeting at Potsdam where Josef Stalin, Harry S. Truman, and Winston Churchill came together to agree on a new European order after WW2. Others will cite the superpower summits between US presidents and Soviet leaders during the cold war. Again, by a treaty ratified in 1963, France and Germany established bilateral meetings of the heads of government on a regular basis twice a year, an idea that was the precursor of many similar institutional arrangements among other European countries. Since the mid-1970s, heads of states and governments of the European Union (or what was then called the European Community), have come together two or three times a year, an arrangement that has become institutionalized in the Maastricht Treaty.
But there are certain elements that characterize these meetings. One such fundamental is personal contact, meaning that participants communicate face-to-face. This makes a difference, because it is more difficult and usually demands greater commitment of time, energy, and political risk than is present in, say, a telephone call.
The other key element of such heads of states meetings is the agenda. Because the specific subjects of these meetings can vary greatly, the setting of the agenda is a highly political process. It shapes the outcome of such a meeting and determines its specific outlook or character. Any judgment of the benefits and drawbacks of bilateral talks or meetings must be made against the background of the specific purpose of such meetings and the tasks they are meant to accomplish.
Focusing specifically on the meeting of the two heads of states, Presidents, Irfaan Ali and Nicolas Maduro, I have two concerns: First and foremost, it does appear to me that in the extant territorial, geopolitical and military circumstances, it appears that a key element – the agenda– was not at all settled.
As a result, we hear President Maduro saying that the meeting will discuss the Guyana/Venezuela border controversy (which was settled since 1899) while President Ali is adamant that Guyana’s border is not up for discussion. If President Maduro has already announced measures to literally take control of Essequibo (more than 60% of the land of our birth), and he has not retreated from that position. And if the United Nations (UN) has referred the issue to the International Court of Justice, which has ruled that that the government of Venezuela shall do nothing to change or affect the status of the territorial boundaries to the west, and, in fact, he has defied that ruling, then why is President Ali meeting outside of a clear, defined and settled agenda?
The thing is who commits to such a meeting of great national, regional and international significance without first agreeing to the agenda? It seems clear to me that this lack of a settled agenda, which is equivalent to no agenda, would facilitate a sad futility of that meeting. Further, if both heads of states are unwilling to abandon their positions (as they have already indicated in their initial public comments) then what is the utility of the encounter? This reassessment of the both the preparation and agenda (substance) of the meeting is not an attempt to dumb down its importance, which retains a certain level of relevance, but by amplifying the questions I ask, we, Guyanese, are left to wonder about the determinants that are driving this meeting.
My second concern is the facilitator, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In 2020, the Prime Minister was embroiled in Guyana’s electoral fallout; he made certain comments unbecoming of a leader who is expected to show a certain level of class. Then in April of 2022, President Maduro cancelled St. Vincent’s debt to Venezuela; he received debt forgiveness. There is a high probably that Guyana could be at a serious disadvantage at this meeting. My comments on those two matters (political embroilment and debt forgiveness) are not driven by grudge or a partisan position rather they are reflective of high expectations from Caribbean political leaders, who ought to demonstrate an acute awareness, understanding and sensibility to the challenges we face as Caribbean nation states or state nations.
