Raw pragmatism
Editorial
Last Wednesday the Constituent Assembly of Venezuela which is producing a draft of a new constitution to submit to referendum, reaffirmed our neighbour's 'right' to Essequibo. Article 10 of the proposed constitution states that Venezuela's lands are those which appertained to the Captaincy General of Venezuela before 1810 (when independence was declared) with modifications wrought by subsequent treaties and arbitral awards "not vitiated by nullity." It is an extraordinary clause, which will make the international community uneasy, since it brings into question Venezuela's good faith with regard to international agreements. While the arbitral award of 1899 is undoubtedly intended here, it is not clear which treaties might also be encompassed by the article. Whatever its implications, both the section itself and the debate which preceded it can leave little room for doubt that our next-door neighbour has no intention of ever abandoning her claim to three-fifths of Guyana. In fact, no Venezuelan government could afford to do so; after nearly four decades of indoctrination of the population, it would be tantamount to political suicide. In particular, President Chavez, with his nationalistic stance cannot afford to renounce the claim. This is a reality which does not appear to have been fully apprehended by everyone in this country; there is this vague feeling abroad (more particularly in Government circles) that because the claim is absurd, or because it had its origins in the Cold War, it will either evaporate or be dropped. It is probably for this reason that the administration has not really addressed itself in any systematic way to a border policy which takes account of long-term strategies which might edge us towards a permanent solution. Instead we are told about the healthy state of relations with our neighbour, as evidenced by the existence of a high-level bi-lateral Commission dealing with matters of trade, among many other things. While it is true that trading and cultural relations with Venezuela should continue to be pursued on the assumption that normal ties will always reduce tension, certain things have nevertheless to be borne in mind. The first of these is that no matter how healthy the state of commerce between the two states, for example, that will not alter the fact of Venezuela's claim to Essequibo. In other words, healthy exchanges and the like will not in and of themselves solve the fundamental problem. The second is that traffic between equal partners is far more effective in impeding confrontation between nations by creating a web of complicated ties, than is trade between unequals. And there is no parity between Venezuela and Guyana. The former has a population of something over twenty million people, while the latter has under a million. Venezuela is not likely to become dependent on Guyana as a consequence of trading relations, therefore, although the reverse might be true. The oil situation is a case in point; this country's annual consumption of this commodity represents only about two days' production for our oil-producing neighbour. In terms of the economic pressure which can be applied by either side, there is simply no reciprocity. Many of the analyses defending the Government's handling of border issues are subjective in character insofar as they are premised on assumptions about President Chavez' intentions. In the first place, cold-blooded diplomats are not supposed to be mind-readers, and in the second, any government which had it in mind to manoeuvre or even bully Guyana to the negotiating table to press certain demands, is certainly not going to announce its aims and tactics in advance, particularly to the victim; on the contrary, its pronouncements will be soothing and reasonable in tone. Given the objective facts of the situation the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to look at contingency planning and has to think long-term. This does not mean that disasters necessarily will happen, but it does mean that given the levers in Venezuela's hands which could be applied at any time, we should be prepared. Time and again the administration is caught off guard, such as in the case of Venezuela's protest about the oil exploration licences surrounding which a total silence has since descended. The border is one issue on which we need less wish-fulfilment thinking and a bit more raw pragmatism.
|