Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
The Working People’s Alliance (WPA) remains uncomfortable with the recent summit held in St Vincent and The Grenadines between Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali and Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. The party in a statement pointed out it was skeptical of the objectives of the meeting, from the beginning, nothing that “while we believe that bilateral dialogue between Guyana and Venezuela should not be taken off the table, we do not think it should have been a first resort.”
Making known Guyanese are aware of Venezuela’s desire for such a meeting and to substitute the ICJ process which the country rejects, the WPA shared a meeting should not have been unconditionally rewarded. “A minimum condition for such a meeting therefore should have been Venezuela’s withdrawal of the decrees enacted in the wake of the referendum and a cessation of all hostilities towards Guyana. Failure to get Venezuela to agree to these conditions meant that President Ali walked into the proverbial political trap. His declaration that he would not discuss the border controversy was naïve on his part.”
WPA also has great difficulty with Dr Ralph Gonsalves and his CARICOM colleagues spearheading the meeting. The utterances of some CARICOM leaders on the developments over the last few weeks left no doubt about where they stood, the party contended, arguing there is no guarantee these leaders are prepared to take a principled stand in support of Guyana’s just case; their position is driven by their gratitude to Venezuela for its economic aid to their countries.
The WPA said it is disgusted by this hustler mentality which has poisoned the region’s elite political culture. “It is against this background that WPA is unsurprised by but disappointed with the Argyle Declaration. We are of the firm view that the Argyle Declaration in its totality represents an advantage for Venezuela at the expense of Guyana’s interests.
“In this regard WPA strongly feels that CARICOM’s leadership has sacrificed Guyana’s territorial interests for its own narrow political and economic interests. This flies in the face of the traditional spirit of Caribbean integration,” the party stated and highlighted the following:-
“First, it cannot be accidental that the declaration describes the matter as a dispute between Guyana and Venezuela and thus calls on the two countries to de-escalate hostilities. This is a slap in Guyana’s face. From the standpoint of international law, Essequibo is not disputed territory. Further, Guyana has never in word or deed threatened Venezuela on this matter. Rather it is Venezuela which has since 1966 been hostile to Guyana.
“Second, the insertion of the Geneva Agreement as a central clause in the declaration while omitting the ICJ process represents a coup in favor of Venezuela. Although the Geneva Agreement provides a forum for dialogue, it was never intended to determine the validity of the 1899 Arbitration Award. This historic position by Guyana has not been endorsed by the Argyle Declaration—a failure that in effect amounts to an endorsement of Venezuela’s official position.
“Third, while WPA accepts that Venezuela’s agreement to cease hostilities towards Guyana could provide some space and time for the latter to rally more support for its cause, the price it has paid is too high. It is clear that Maduro has something to take back to his supporters while the Guyana government came out of the meeting without any tangible gains. This lopsided outcome hurts Guyana’s morale and could be detrimental to its case in the medium to long term.
“WPA hastens to point out that Venezuela’s threat to Guyana is not just military in nature—it is also economic. Venezuela is threatening to stifle Guyana economically. The decision to pass a budget for Essequibo and to arrogate unto itself the right to authorize investments in the territory should not be underestimated.
“Fourth, WPA takes this opportunity to reiterate its view that the Guyana government must hastily move to lead the crafting of a national initiative to combat Venezuela’s aggression. This must include at a minimum an All-Party Forum which should take full advantage of all the technical and professional expertise at our disposal. The WPA does not rule out other more robust forms of national governance.
“Fifth, WPA supports a weaponizing of the army to meet the current military challenges. This must be part of an overall strategy that clearly defines the role of the armed forces in non-partisan terms. While WPA is aware of the political and ethnic sensitivities of this issue, it feels the urgency of the matter requires some degree of flexibility by the political forces. Further, it is our view that the government must make every effort to ensure that all groups in society are encouraged to join the army. Defense of the country should transcend the ethno-racial divide.
“Finally, WPA supports the crafting of a genuine developmental plan that takes into consideration the Venezuelan threat. It is our view that economic development cannot be divorced from the defense of our territorial integrity. The alleviation of poverty, for example, must be pursued in a more structural manner and with much more purpose.”
