By Roysdale Forde S.C, In the sovereign Republic of Guyana, where the principles of territorial integrity and regional stability form the foundation of our national ethos, the specter of a full-scale military confrontation between the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela looms ominously over the peaceful Caribbean basin. This escalating geopolitical tension, rooted in long standing disputes over sanctions, narcotics interdiction, and regime legitimacy, poses an existential threat to the peace and security of our region.
Still, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration demonstrates a profound and inexplicable indifference to this volatile situation, failing to proffer any substantive assurances to the Guyanese populace regarding their safety and welfare in the event of armed conflict. Such dereliction of duty not only contravenes the government’s constitutional obligations under Article 13 of the Constitution of Guyana, which mandates the promotion of national unity and security, but also clearly undermines the collective aspirations of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for peaceful coexistence as enshrined in the Treaty of Chaguaramas.
The current impasse between Washington and Caracas is no mere diplomatic spat; it is a powder keg with ramifications that extend far beyond bilateral relations. Recent U.S. military deployments in the Caribbean – encompassing warships, fighter jets, and elite special operations units – signal a deliberate escalation, ostensibly under the guise of counternarcotics operations but increasingly perceived as preparatory maneuvers for regime change. Venezuela’s countermeasures, including the mobilisation of millions of militia members and the invocation of a state of external emergency, further heighten the risk of miscalculation leading to open hostilities.
For Guyana, this scenario is particularly precarious, given Venezuela’s irredentist claims over the Essequibo region, which constitute a direct violation of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the principles of uti possidetis juris in international law. A U.S.-Venezuela conflict could precipitate spillover effects, including refugee influxes, disrupted trade routes, and potential incursions into Guyanese territory, thereby jeopardising our hard-won economic gains from offshore oil discoveries.
Internationally recognised military analysts have underscored the gravity of this predicament. Dr. R. Evan Ellis, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute and a preeminent expert on Latin American security dynamics, has warned of the inherent dangers in such escalations. In his analysis, Ellis observes that “the biggest risk of a military operation in Venezuela which captures or eliminates Maduro and a portion of his cronies is the escalation of violence.”
This escalation, he posits, could engulf neighbouring states in chaos, with U.S. forces in the Caribbean providing a spectrum of options from limited strikes to more decisive interventions, yet without sufficient capacity for prolonged occupation. Ellis’s insights highlight the precarious balance: while U.S. actions might aim to neutralise threats from the Maduro regime, they inadvertently amplify regional instability, placing nations like Guyana on the frontlines of unintended consequences.
Echoing these concerns, Dr. Craig A. Deare, a professor of national security affairs at the National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs and a seasoned military strategist, emphasizes the broader hemispheric repercussions. Deare asserts that “military action could worsen Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, harm civilians and destabilise neighbouring countries already burdened by refugee flows.” With over 7.7 million Venezuelans having fled since 2014, the Caribbean region, including Guyana, bears a disproportionate burden.
Deare further contends that the Maduro regime’s persistence “threatens regional U.S. national security interests and undermines democratic movements across the hemisphere,” suggesting that limited military options, such as precision strikes or naval blockades, might be contemplated to compel behavioural change. However, he cautions against the perils of such approaches, which could exacerbate civilian suffering and provoke retaliatory actions that ripple through CARICOM states.
From a juridical perspective, the legal ramifications of this brewing conflict are equally alarming. United Nations independent experts, serving as authoritative jurists in the realm of international human rights and humanitarian law, have unequivocally condemned U.S. maneuvers as violations of foundational norms. In a recent statement, these experts declared that “these moves are an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region.”
They further assert that such actions “violate the fundamental international obligations not to intervene in the domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country,” invoking Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the right to self-determination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This juridical rebuke underscores the illegality of coercive interventions, reminiscent of historical precedents in Latin America that have sown seeds of resentment and instability.
The PPP/C’s apathy in the face of these warnings is not merely negligent; it borders on a breach of fiduciary duty to the Guyanese people. Despite CARICOM’s calls for dialogue and de-escalation, the administration has proffered no contingency plans, no enhanced border security measures, nor any diplomatic initiatives to safeguard our sovereignty. Where are the assurances of emergency preparedness, alliances with regional partners, or engagements with international bodies like the Organisation of American States (OAS) to mitigate risks? This indifference contrasts sharply with the proactive stances of previous administrations, which prioritised national defense and regional solidarity.
Guyana’s strategic position demands vigilant leadership. As a nation committed to the rule of law, we must advocate for peaceful resolutions through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the Essequibo dispute and urge multilateral forums to avert catastrophe. The PPP/C must awaken from its torpor and provide concrete assurances: bolstering our defense forces, coordinating with CARICOM on humanitarian contingencies, and pursuing diplomatic channels to insulate our populace from the fallout of great-power rivalries.
At the end, the threats to Caribbean peace are real and immediate, demanding resolute action rather than complacency. As Dr. Ellis and Dr. Deare illuminate, the path to conflict is fraught with perils for our region, while UN jurists remind us of the legal imperatives for restraint. The PPP/C’s failure to address these realities imperils not only Guyanese safety but the very fabric of our democratic order. It is incumbent upon all stakeholders to demand accountability and forge a united front against this encroaching storm. Only through principled leadership can we preserve the sanctity of our homeland and the harmony of our Caribbean family.
