In the discussion of foreign policy there is an often quoted remark of Lord Palmerston, a British Foreign Minister in the nineteenth century. It is as follows: "Britain has no permanent friends or enemies only permanent interests". The statement is usually cited in support of the contention that foreign policy's dominant concern must always be with the preservation of interests and not only with friendships.

Palmerston's remark is here recalled in connection with the communique issued at the end of the talks held here on November 29 and 30 between the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela and Guyana in which they "reiterated their commitment to build on the ties of friendship and cooperation between Guyana and Venezuela". But less than two weeks later in Venezuela at the Summit Conference of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) the Venezuelan delegation, which included their Foreign Minister so recently in Georgetown, circulated a map showing Guyana's Essequibo region (5/8ths of the country) as part of Venezuela. The map was subsequently withdrawn as a result of Guyana's protest. On the Guyana side it was somewhat inappropriately stated that the Venezuelans had "graciously withdrawn" the offending map. But there was nothing gracious in the withdrawal of the map as it constituted aggression, albeit cartographic aggression.

The conflict or at least difference between friendship and cooperation on the one hand and on the other Guyana's national interest had already surfaced at the Foreign Ministers' press conference in Georgetown. There it had been admitted that Venezuela's claims to Guyana's territory had deterred development and remained a point of discussion. It was suggested that the matter might be discussed within the high level bilateral commission established by the two sides. However, this is an unacceptable and outrageous proposal as the question of Guyana's sovereignty over its territory cannot be a matter for discussion or negotiation.

There is nevertheless no gainsaying the fact that the programmes of cooperation including the Energy Cooperation Agreement outlined in the Foreign Ministers' Joint Communique is a major step towards the "enhancement of cooperation between the two countries". All to the good provided it is not seen as a shunting aside of Guyana's permanent non-negotiable national interests which in this case is the maintenance of Guyana's territorial integrity.

It is not easy to define interests but it is clearly those values which cannot be lost or diluted without Guyana and our way of life ceasing to be what it now is. It includes preserving the territory on which we live, the industries by which we currently make a living, our basic system of government and our ways of living, a set of core values.

The Venezuelans for their part have never turned aside from the continuous assertion of their national interests. For decades they have been circulating maps of the kind distributed at the ACS Summit. They have been doing this at regional and sub-regional and international conferences - even during the so-called l2-year quietus agreed in the Protocol of Port-of-Spain. In key positions in Caracas there are huge posters with maps showing the Essequibo region as part of Venezuela. And there are all kinds of related propaganda activities including Zona Reclamacion study groups in schools.

On the Guyana side by contrast we are steadily losing the case by default. For some eight years the Guyana foreign policy on this matter, if there was such, might be described as a kind of ostrich tactic hiding one's head from the facts in the belief that they would go away. Such a tactic has manifestly failed.

There has been over those years so little effort to inform or educate that very few Guyanese know little more than that the Essequibo region belongs to Guyana. Further afield even reputable agencies like the BBC now get the facts wrong. Thus the BBC's Caribbean report about two months ago reported that for a century Venezuela has steadily refused to accept the Arbitral Award. This is untrue. Venezuela not only accepted the Arbitral Award but accepted the demarcation of the boundary line on the ground. It was only some forty years ago that Venezuela initiated a controversy on the arbitral award, until then accepted as binding.

Likewise, almost unknown but relevant is the little known fact that in terms of the arbitral award, while some of the disputed territory was given to British Guiana, a large part was awarded to Venezuela.

The security of the territory is a fundamental interest. But in maintaining Guyana's security it must be recognised that the GDF however valiant and well trained and well armed can in realistic terms play only a surveillance or tripwire role. The defence must come from the civilian population, the people of Guyana, not by arming them but by ensuring they are well informed and resolute. It must be a matter of strong morale and identity and belief in country.

Hence there is urgent need for a persuasive information campaign. At the height of the dispute with Venezuela, the previous government had issued a number of useful booklets. Several of them are now out of print. Some of these publications should be re-edited, updated, attractively printed and made widely available. New pamphlets should be prepared to take account of recent developments. This is not a question of funds but of priorities. During the same period the Ministry had issued a handsome range of publications of ministerial speeches and other matters.

The writing of articles and the production of radio and TV programmes should be steadily encouraged and supported.

Following the Venezuelan example particular attention should be given to the educational sector. Schools should be provided with kits (maps, lecture notes etc.) which would enable teachers to give lessons from time to time. The Foreign Service Institute and the University of Guyana should cooperate in holding seminars on the border controversies, some of this has already been done but the venues should be widened to include the Berbice campus and locations in Essequibo.

Research including post-graduate research should be encouraged. A British scholar of Guyanese origin coming here in 2000 to work towards her PhD in Guyana's foreign policy, found it difficult to access the higher levels of government. However on using her London university travel grant to visit Caracas, she found all doors open to her. Interviews were quickly arranged with two former Presidents of Venezuela and with a range of scholars.

Maintaining the ties of friendship and cooperation is of clear value. But friendly regimes lose power or get into difficulty. The recent one day strike in Caracas could be ominous; it was almost inconceivable a year or two ago. Regimes when they into domestic trouble have been known over the centuries to distract attention by external adventures.

The time is long overdue for restoring border issues to the front burner. Time must be found for devising a new foreign policy for the preservation of territorial integrity, a policy to replace Ramphal's once highly effective policy based on Afro-Asian solidarity - but this must be a matter for separate discussion.

In this year President Jagdeo it is proposed will visit Paramaribo to meet Suriname's President and President Chavez will in all likelihood visit Georgetown in the second quarter of this year. Such visits hold the important promise of further understanding but amid the handshakes and hugs and fanfare and euphoria it is important to ensure that Guyana will steadily maintain its basic interest, namely that our territory is a non negotiable heritage.

Only last week Prime Minister Sam Hinds spoke of how the CGX incident on one side and the expressions from Venezuela have put a freeze on explorations for oil in Guyana's territorial waters.