OPINION: No referendum needed in Guyana

Last Updated on Monday, 27 November 2023, 7:48 by Denis Chabrol

By Dr. Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus

International relations are different from international politics. The former is concerned with the routine matters in interstate interactions, and managed mostly by bureaucrats who follow standard operating procedures. The latter, however, are in the domain of high politics. At this level, the issue of power looms large, and the conduct of foreign policy ranges from subtle diplomacy to brutal and terrifying force all the way up to the use of nuclear weapons. Put differently, while international affairs have room for error, international politics is far less forgiving. Errors can have existential consequences for a country and its national sovereignty.

I would like to politely invite the WPA to avail itself to the differences between the two forms of international engagement. Their call for a referendum in Guyana to counter the December 3^rd referendum in Venezuela should be taken as an honest suggestion, but also fully rejected. Allow me to explain.

For the benefit of the WPA, and all concerned, let us recall that the Twelfth Parliament of Guyana First Session (2020-2023) National Assembly Resolution No 66, in part, reads as follows: Resolved – That this National Assembly:

1. Affirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
2. Reaffirms its recognition and acceptance of the 1899 Arbitral Award as a “full, perfect and final” settlement of the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela and Article IV (2) of the 1966 Geneva Agreement as giving the mandate to the United Nations Secretary-General to select the means of resolving the controversy.
3. Denounces as provocative, unlawful, void, and of no international legal effect, the purported referendum in Venezuela that is scheduled for December 3, 2023.
4. Supports the Government in its pursuit to ensure a peaceful and lawful resolution of the controversy before the International Court of Justice and rejects the proposal to return to any form of dialogue with Venezuela on the controversy outside of the process before the Court.

Note that the Extraordinary Session specifically “denounces” the December 3^rd referendum as “provocative, unlawful, void, and of no international legal effect…” Further, the Resolution is clear that the path forward is to rely on the ICJ process to establish closure on Venezuela’s misguided efforts on the Essequibo.

If we follow the WPA suggestion, Guyana will inadvertently, but tacitly, and wrongfully, agree that the Essequibo is an open question that may be settled by our own referendum. The fact is, Essequibo is an integral and indivisible part of Guyana and we do not need any referendum either here or elsewhere to establish what is already an established fact since 1899. My advice to the WPA is to be more disciplined about what it puts out in the media. It is not a party known for skills in international politics.

While the WPA wants unity it has gone about it in a way that boggles the mind. Consider the following statement by the party as reported in Demerara Waves – “There is more than a hint of sloth, complacency, and partisan grandstanding, which is in stark contrast to Venezuela’s singlemindedness…” What sloth? Whose complacency and partisan grandstanding? The only injurious activity I have noticed recently was the biased race inspection intrusion by a private group from the US. That team came here for partisan reasons, some of it having to do with infighting within the PNCR over its leadership.

What the WPA should be really concerned about also, is the fact that their own party’s ideology, namely, economic populism, is remarkably like that of Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela. This is the prefect time for the WPA intellectuals to do so serious introspection about their ideology, commitments, and policies. To the best of my knowledge, they support such wild things like distributing US$ 1,000,000 to every Guyanese, a proposal that would make us more bankrupt than Venezuela. One would hope that the WPA and their APNU colleagues learn something from Maduro’s mistakes.

The WPA is not known for having intellectual resources in foreign policy and international security. Based on that, it should be more mindful about what it put out in the public. The issues between Venezuela and Guyana have gone past ‘international relations;’ we are now on the terrain of ‘international politics.’

Dr. Randy Persaud is Adviser in the Office of the President, Guyana.