Essequibo
lessons
Wesley
Gibbings
Current
global developments are today contributing to an understanding of how our
respective Caribbean countries are obliged to navigate international relations
like few other occasions in recent history.
We
can spend forever examining the internal dynamics that have spurred alarmingly
diverse views, even over here, on the situations in Ukraine, Gaza, and even
Haiti.
“Alarming”,
perhaps because in today’s world there are countless avenues for the accessing
of authoritative information and opinion on global affairs even while we are
exposed to an abundance of dogma and ideological shibboleth.
On
other occasions we can have a closer look at these three situations that have
elicited quite an interesting, if not disturbing, variety of perspectives
within our respective Caribbean countries, even in the face of general
consistency at official national levels.
We
have a university that owes us much more on such questions than has been
extended both inside and outside its hallowed, traditionally fortified halls.
Principal Rose-Marie Belle Antoine has urged the lowering of the drawbridges.
For, this institution is a singularly important portal to greater public
understanding of complex issues.
It
also remains important to keep our gaze fixed firmly on our own geographical
neighbourhood. For instance, the absence of an informed, enlightened Haitian
solution persists and this will continue to be the case. Invasion by
invitation, of all varieties, appears inadvisable.
But
now, and just as urgently … and yet again … Venezuela’s longstanding
expansionary ambitions with special emphasis on Guyana’s place in the scheme of
things have recently and dramatically re-emerged.
It
has always interested me that even in the face of intense, protracted,
murderous internecine conflict, Venezuelan politicians have so frequently
occupied bipartisan space on the troublesome Essequibo question.
It
is hard to find, even among adult Venezuelans being welcomed here, those who do not believe that the land space comprising two-thirds of
Guyanese territory is theirs. It’s taught alongside the alphabet at school.
There is no argument between competing political parties save for occasional
assertions of treasonous compromise.
This
must certainly concern regional, conflicted, ‘Chavistas’ who have been inclined
to gleefully toe the Caracas line on virtually everything, including the
outright violent oppression and neglect that have led to unparalleled migration
challenges in our part of the world. They do this even as they embrace a notion
of Guyanese fraternity, and tout Caricom ambitions.
Had
these people been vigilant on the subject of the Essequibo challenge in the
face of Guyana’s social and economic transformation, their unrepentant devotion
to fake egalitarian revolution might have taken a deserved turn for the worst
much earlier than is currently the case.
Even
so, there has been no unequivocal posturing on the subject from the red berets.
That
a “Guayana Esequiba” referendum in Venezuela should now be deployed as part of
a process of political recovery in the face of electoral threats and brittle
political circumstance, tells us a story we should have all been familiar with
long before now. Makes me wonder about the state of Caribbean ‘Chavismo’. They
must all certainly be in some form of doleful confusion and contemplation.
This,
you see, is not about being “left” or “right” or anywhere in the middle. The
International Court of Justice will hopefully sooner rather than later
determine it as a matter of juridical “right” and “wrong.” Though, even so,
Venezuela seems afraid to engage the process.
It
is also, significantly, a rare point of political cohesion in Guyana. Two
political organisations that have been trading brutal rhetorical punches at
each other have met and agreed, as has been the case in the past, that the
challenge to Essequibo is a national issue requiring all hands on deck.
Sadly,
such a predisposition is not always apparent in our case in T&T. There have
been some significant lows. Incomprehensible Opposition foreign policy
‘whistleblowing” and the absurdity of proposed selective, personalised
‘sanctions’ slipped through the cracks of informed public commentary in the age
of COVID-19.
Meanwhile,
in Georgetown, Aubrey Norton and Irfaan Ali in an extremely rare display of
solidarity, shook hands and met, and whatever the smirks across the table,
partisan weapons were left outside just for that time. In Port of Spain, there
are people who craved sanctions in 2020. There has been little shouldering of
arms. Instead, there is the continued emptying of clips even as violence and
murder stalk the land.
Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from Essequibo.
