By Roysdale Forde S.C- Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, the specter of military conflict between the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela casts a long shadow over the Caribbean Basin. As a sovereign nation sharing a porous 800-kilometer border with Venezuela, Guyana finds itself at the epicenter of potential fallout.
The pressing question demanding urgent scrutiny is this: Is Guyana equipped to absorb the tens of thousands of Venezuelans – and potentially others -who may flee across our borders in the event of such a conflagration? Sadly, the answer is a plainly no, exacerbated by the PPP/C government’s alarming silence and nonchalant inaction, which verges on a dereliction of constitutional duty.
The geopolitical terrain is riddled with hazards. Recent developments, including intensified U.S. sanctions, the deployment of American carrier strike groups in the region, and Venezuela’s aggressive rhetoric under President Nicolás Maduro, recall historical interventions like the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. A full-scale conflict could trigger a massive exodus, eclipsing the ongoing Venezuelan migrant crisis that has displaced over 8 million people since 2014.
Guyana, with its emerging oil-fueled economy and a population of under 850,000, lacks the capacity to handle a refugee influx of this magnitude. This is no hypothetical; it is a predictable outcome of international relations dynamics, as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which bans the threat or use of force – yet history shows such principles are frequently violated in the name of strategic imperatives.
Legally, Guyana is obligated under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (acceded to in 1995), as well as the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, which extends protections to those escaping widespread violence. These frameworks enforce non-refoulement obligations, barring the repatriation of asylum-seekers to danger. However, without a robust domestic structure, our compliance is more theoretical than practical.
The Immigration Act (Cap. 14:02) offers basic rules on entry and deportation but falls short on provisions for mass arrivals, relying on judicial precedents like the seminal Attorney General v. Tapper (1970) to guard against capricious executive decisions. Politically, the government’s reluctance to promulgate subsidiary laws or inter-agency protocols heightens this exposure, risking international rebuke and internal discord.
The PPP/C administration’s response – or glaring absence thereof – is profoundly disconcerting. Since taking power in 2020, it has adopted a lax stance on border security and migration policy, favouring oil revenues over forward-thinking strategy. The eerie silence on this matter is profound: no official pronouncements, no legislative discussions, and no revealed contingency measures.
This lethargy stands in stark contrast to proactive steps in neighbouring Brazil, which has reinforced borders and set up refugee camps via Operation Welcome. In Guyana, the ongoing Essequibo territorial dispute with Venezuela already taxes our resources, yet, the government marginalises the refugee risk amid recent Venezuelan sovereignty assertions.
This indifference is not mere oversight but a calculated political risk to national sovereignty. Article 154A of our Constitution requires safeguarding fundamental rights, including life and security; the administration’s passivity might thus be viewed as a violation of its fiduciary responsibilities to the populace.
Further aggravating the issue is the disturbing lack of any evident policy or plan to address the repercussions of a U.S.-Venezuela war. No tailored national emergency framework exists under the Civil Defence Act (Cap. 20:03) for humanitarian crises. Critical components – such as bolstered border monitoring, interim shelters, health protocols, and assimilation strategies -are notably absent, despite some ad hoc measures for current migrants.
Economically, an uncontrolled surge could overburden infrastructure: hospitals in Region One (Barima-Waini) are already stretched thin, and pressures on food security, intensified by global disruptions, might spark societal friction. Legally, absent predefined asylum processes, impromptu rulings could infringe on due process, fostering lawsuits and undermining the rule of law.
Politically, this void courts exploitation. The opposition has persistently advocated for a bipartisan national security council, only to face rebuffs. The government’s fixation on extractive sectors obscures the human element: Venezuelan arrivals could offer expertise but also pose risks like cross-border crime, evident in rising smuggling along the Cuyuni River. Lacking a strategy, Guyana hazards becoming an unwitting buffer zone, bearing the brunt of superpower rivalries while leaders revel in petroleum gains. This is not leadership; it is surrender.
The ramifications transcend our frontiers. A refugee surge could unsettle the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), testing regional unity under the Treaty of Chaguaramas. As a founding member, Guyana bears a moral and legal duty to pioneer, not procrastinate. We should apply the precautionary principle – rooted in international environmental law but relevant here – to preempt predictable perils.
In summation, Guyana remains woefully unprepared for the humanitarian deluge a U.S.-Venezuela conflict might unleash. The PPP/C government’s ominous silence and lax conduct, alongside the void of any tangible policy or plan, pose a severe menace to our national interests. Action is imperative now – before the tempest erupts.
