In defining Guyana's security one thinks, especially in view of recent events, of the preservation of territorial integrity. The focus is on incursions across the land borders or into territorial seas or of over-flights which have not been authorised. In keeping with this focus there is (and correctly so) the repeated affirmation of Guyana's sovereignty over the region of Essequibo based on the centuries old Arbitral Award and the rejection of the flimsy tissue of the assertions on which the Award is being challenged by Venezuela.

In the light of the concerns raised by recent assertions and manoeuvring across the border the Foreign Minister has urged caution in Guyana's approach. Caution and prudence are certainly necessary especially in view of the often volatile politics in our huge neighbour. The Foreign Minister has also drawn attention to the fact that Venezuela will soon take over the chairmanship of the Group of 77. However it is difficult to share the view that the G77 is still a significant international player. The G77 remains largely focused on action through the UN system but the UN system is itself no longer a major player in effecting global economic change.

The political solidarity of the G77 likewise wears thin. Thus the Central American states are committed to thwarting WTO approval of the Cotonou Agreement so painstakingly negotiated with the European Union and which is of life and death importance to Caricom states and other member states of the ACP grouping. Moreover, one large sub group of the G77, the least developed countries (some 50 in number), are steadily being pushed into a separatist position on major international economic issues.

The Foreign Minister also drew attention to the continuation of the good offices work of the UN Secretary General. The present "Good Officer" is the Barbadian diplomat Oliver Jackman. However, the very limited value of that mechanism for the resolution of controversy and conflict must be recognised.

All to the good but it is absolutely necessary that a cautious approach should not slip into or be perceived as the "Let sleeping dogs lie" policy of the last nine years. The dogs are awake and barking and one is persuaded that the distinguished Member of Parliament in last Friday's issue of Stabroek News is right in asserting in his letter that what we are seeing are carefully organised tactics towards the achievement of a strategic goal.

Hence the need for wider analysis and action. Territorial integrity is only one of the two major security issues confronting Guyana, the other is the maintenance of the cohesion of our society which so easily breaks down into conflict under stress, especially at elections. While the issues of internal cohesion are more often than not posed as the need for constitutional reform, adequate representation and amendment of legislation, the fundamental issue is about equitable distribution of resources and benefits between our two major groups. Hence the urgent need for rapid economic development so that there can be more cake to share out. Without rapid economic development our society despite constitutional change will continue to be prone to break down and our democratic institutions will be under steady threat of erosion and collapse. And that is precisely where the two areas of security are tightly interlinked.

Development for Guyana at this stage must be resource development which means development in the resource rich territory which is under claim.

Venezuela's claims and actions have without doubt over the years frightened away investors. At present an Asian foreign enterprise associated with a powerful Asian government has virtually withdrawn from the development of its forest concession. We do not know what the US State Department advised but the Beal project which had the promise of a substantial economic development spin off may also have withdrawn in view of the perception of unacceptable risks. The list is long and goes a long way back and includes a Yugoslav enterprise which was certain of the oil potential of the Takutu basin and adjoining areas. Moreover, entrepreneurs looking at the map of Guyana will not distinguish, in terms of risk, the claimed region from the rest of the country.

By curtailing investment, the claims and actions of our next door neighbour thus constitute, despite the fact that there may be no formal non-border incursion, forms of aggression and make nonsense of the often repeated assertion of commitment to peaceful resolution of the controversy.

At an earlier time Guyana's leadership role in the Non-Aligned Movement mobilised the vast majority of developing countries in support of Guyana's position and thus provided a deterrent to hostile action. But changes in the international system have now closed off that option.

But in diplomatic terms Guyana cannot stand still while a highly visible campaign is being waged against us, perhaps with the strategic goal of forcing concessions by putting a virtual prohibition on foreign investment and a stranglehold on urgently necessary development in the Essequibo region.

New diplomatic arenas must be explored, nearer home, and within hemispheric systems. Is it not possible that the proposed Inter-American Democratic Charter now being negotiated within the OAS may offer the opportunity for new safeguards. The Draft Charter already recognises the close interdependence between economic development and democracy. May it not be sharpened to ensure that territorial controversy is not invoked by one Member State of the OAS to deter foreign investment and to sabotage development in another Member State?