OPINION: The WPA’s take on the Argyle Declaration 

Last Updated on Monday, 18 December 2023, 21:02 by Writer

By Dr. Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus

We should expect that in a time of existential threat, all political parties will put aside old partisan interests, and instead, rise like the Maginot Line to unreservedly defend the National Interest. And while the PNCR and Mr. Norton have answered that call with heads held high, we cannot say that the WPA’s initial take on the St. Vincent talks has met that expectation. Rather than draw on the Argyle Declaration to bolster national unity, the WPA has chosen to focus too much on areas of ambiguity. 

There are three basic problems with the WPA statement on the St. Vincent meeting, and the Argyle Declaration, specifically. 

The first is that the WPA must appreciate that it does not have the basic information necessary to make definitive statements on the St. Vincent meeting. President Ali as Commander-in-Chief and his national security and foreign policy teams, are the only ones with all the information, including human and technical intelligence. Further, President Ali and his national security and foreign policy staff are the only ones who know the specific relationships and reciprocal commitments with our partners and allies in the international community. Specific knowledge here should be the only basis on which to make definitive pronouncements. While international and strategic theories may be helpful in the WPA’s analysis, they are not enough. Take that from someone who taught IR theory for thirty-eight years and is now in the ‘real world.’

The Commander-in-Chief and his team are best placed to make consequential decisions regarding the border controversy with Venezuela. The decision to go to St. Vincent was made on sound strategic considerations after all other options were reviewed. For national security reasons more cannot be said. 

The WPA did not want Guyana to go to St. Vincent. According to their statement – “A minimum condition for such a meeting …should have been Venezuela’s withdrawal of the decrees enacted in the wake of the referendum and a cessation of all hostilities towards Guyana.” The WPA is out of its depths here. Their recommendation is the equivalent of saying to Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and then we (Ukraine) will talk. Or to Israel, affirm a two-state solution first, and only then we (Palestinians) will negotiate. The whole point of the meeting was to get Venezuela to stand down from its campaign of intense rhetorical aggression, a phenomenon that is oftentimes a prelude to mobilization for war. We had other objectives as well.

Note that Guyana got a commitment of non-aggression, something that has shockingly slipped over the heads of all the WPA. Here is point six of the Argyle Declaration: 

“Agreed that both States will refrain, whether by words or deeds, from escalating any conflict or disagreement arising from any controversy between them. The two States will cooperate to avoid incidents on the ground conducive to tension between them. In the event of such an incident the two States will immediately communicate with one another, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Community of Latin America and the Caribbean (CELAC), and the President of Brazil to contain, reverse and prevent its recurrence.” 

The WPA does not appear to understand that “…both States will refrain, whether by words or deeds from escalating any conflict” is the gold standard in a pact of non-aggression. Some critics have objected to this with the factually correct but diplomatically useless argument that Guyana has never threatened Venezuela. We all know that. But when a declaration such as the Argyle Declaration is crafted, it always takes the form and spirit of equality of expression. The point cannot be to name Venezuela alone because if that is done, Maduro would have (rightfully) refused to sign it. 

Secondly, the WPA has issues with Ralph Gonsalves and other Caribbean leaders. Who else do they propose? The initiative is from CARICOM, CELAC, and Brazil, with a UN observer. This is not about Ralph Gonsalves. Could it be that the WPA is upset with the Vincentian Prime Minister because he stopped the WPA from its attempts to steal the 2020 elections in Guyana? Just thinking aloud here.

Third and finally, apart from the statements on the strictly diplomatic side of things, the WPA is the only bunch that sees race issues in our border controversy with Venezuela. Everyone else is standing united. The WPA sees “political and ethnic sensitivities” in strengthening Guyana’s military. This point in their statement does not add any value to our understanding of the current situation and deserves no further consideration.

The WPA needs to familiarize itself with basic issues in strategic studies, geopolitics, diplomacy, regionalism, multilateralism, and with what is happening inside Guyana. National security is, without prejudice, the one area where transparency is not fully available. The WPA must learn to appreciate that simple fact. 

Dr. Persaud is Adviser on International Affairs, Office of the President, Guyana.