OPINION: I repeat – Burnham and Jagan should not be blamed for Venezuela’s aggression

Last Updated on Wednesday, 6 December 2023, 12:24 by Denis Chabrol

By Dr. Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus

Some things are worth repeating because not only they are true, but also because some of these truths have real meaning in our contemporary national situation. It is this context that I would like to state once again, that Jagan and Burnham should not be blamed for the conduct of Venezuelan foreign policy viz a vis Guyana. More specifically, to blame Jagan for Maduro’s brinksmanship, or to blame Burnham for the 1966 Geneva Agreement is at best poor scholarship. Henry Jeffrey has a PhD in political science, but that notwithstanding, his analysis is methodologically flawed, and profoundly anti-historical. Allow me to explain.

Let us deal with Burnham first. For the sake of clarity let us set aside Burnham’s authoritarianism for a moment. The facts surrounding the 1966 Geneva Agreement are clear. The Agreement was struck before Guyana’s independence. The United Kingdom had full control of Guyana’s foreign relations, and, accordingly, Burnham did not have the capacity to object to the agreement when it was constructed and entered into force. The Agreement was signed on February 7, 1966, and registered by Venezuela on May 5, 1966.

The Preamble of No 8192 clearly states the following – “In conformity with the agenda that was agreed for the governmental conversations concerning the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom over the frontier with British Guiana, in accordance with the joint communique of 7 November ,1963, …” Note the date, which is well before Guyana’s independence. The agenda for the 1966 Agreement was decided well before Burnham could have exercised any direct authority over the matter.

Those who blame Burnham are doing so because of our own domestic politics, and no doubt, because of the authoritarian history of the PNC. It is my contention, further, that Burnham continues to be blamed because he is still cherished and defended by contemporary Burnhamites. Jeffrey appears to fall into that category. Rather than do the right thing and concede the internationally established and documented authoritarian practices of the PNC, Jeffrey is comfortable in framing the matter as the PPP’s “historic moral pomposity about rigged elections, PNC racism, etc.” Dr. Henry Jeffrey has allowed his political identity, overdetermined as it were in the Freudian sense, to overwhelm his training in political analysis. Sad!

Yet, keep in mind that my real contention is that Burnham cannot be blamed. My definitive proof is to be found in Article VIII of the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Apropos, it states the following – “Upon the attainment of independence by British Guiana, the Government of Guyana shall thereafter be a party to this Agreement, in addition to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire land and the Government of Venezuela (emphasis added).

How about the Jagan side of the political equation? In this case, Dr. Jeffrey tries ridiculously hard to nail down Venezuelan postures on Jagan by drawing a straight line between an obscure 1951 letter, and the 1962 objections of Venezuela to the 1899 Arbitral Award and the 1905 border demarcation. Has Dr. Jeffrey forgotten that L.F.S. Burnham was the Chairman of the PPP in 1951? If the letter was consequential, then it is incumbent on Jeffrey to do two things. Firstly, Jeffrey needs to prove that Burnham, who was the Chairman of the party did not approve of the letter. If Jagan sent it without Burnham’s knowledge, then it means his (Burnham’s) leadership was lacking. But if Burnham did not agree with the letter and started side-bar communication with the Americans and British, then that is proof that Burnham was a disloyal and dishonest leader of a nationalist party from his earliest days?

Secondly, instead of his tortured deductive method of causation, Jeffrey needs to provide empirical evidence that the said letter caused the Americans and the British to fabricate the 1966 Agreement to control Jagan. If the West knew of the letter in 1951, why did they allow Jagan to form governments in 1957 and 1961? Why did they wait 15 years? And still further, why would the West have needed Venezuela to keep Jagan out when they could have on their own, and did indeed, help keep Jagan out until 1992?

I can tell Dr. Jeffrey that President George H.W. Bush had to personally answer the following question from White House Chief of Staff, James Baker – Sir, you do know that if there is a free and fair election, Jagan and the PPP are likely to win? President Bush basic answer was – so let it be. This was told to me by Dr. Robert Pastor, President Carter’s lead hand in the Caribbean, and the political force when the Carter Center intervened in Guyana to produce the October 5, 1992, elections.

I encourage Dr. Jeffrey to use his training more constructively. The narrational flourish built around ethnic concatenations is not worth it.

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