Dear Editor,
As a localised response to the pirata provocation launched by the naval patrol vessel of Venezuela within this country’s EEZ maritime space; your editorial ‘Clashes and Consequences’ (Sun. Mar 3 2025) established at least technically a much broader global context. My own perspective, nurtured by decades of shared experiences in frontline territories, is that the most hegemonic forces within Venezuela’s state apparatus are reacting to what Professor Ivelaw Griffith defined as <vulnerability interdependence>, specific to the world’s major superpower as expressed by the MAGA President Donald Trump. Unlike Ukraine, Guyana does not exercise governance over provinces where rebel contingents have established some form of structure and authority (e.g. the territorial Donbas and Donetsk).
Furthermore, Guyana – as a peaceful, developing country committed to democracy, the rule of law and prosperity for all of its population – does not constitute a threat to the assets and security of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (BVR). On the contrary, Guyana together with the Caribbean community, especially since 1992 and the restoration of democracy, has supported all regional humanitarian missions relating to climate adversities and disasters; as well as support for the people of Haiti. It may also be the case that even prior to the rolling out of ALBA/Petro-Caribe, Guyana dispatched critical flood relief to the Venezuelan government during the restoration process consequential to the devastating 1999 inundation of the Vargas state in Venezuela
During the historical era of non-alignment and subsequently, Guyana and Venezuela voted at the United Nations on joint resolutions supporting the complete independence of territories in the ‘South African complex’. Additionally, the two countries also supported the independence of a mineral rich country, East Timor – a former Indian Ocean Portuguese colony. Throughout the decades up until the oil exploration and operations of the FBSOs, Guyana and the BRV were considered as ‘partners’ at the level of trade links, cultural collaboration and geopolitical cooperation, e.g., CELAC, Mercosur.
Recall the late President Chavez in a (reaction to his extremist adversaries) statement to the effect that his government was not opposed to FDIs in the territory categorized as controversial, on condition that this process was based on agriculture development. Recall also the Caracas authorities offer to dredge the Pomeroon River, as well as the granting of medical scholarships to suitably qualified Guyanese during the tenure of the Ramotar administration. It was only at this historic phase of acute political crisis and economic turmoil in the BRV where the PDVSA entities encountered imperialist headwinds from majors such as REPSOL, Chevron, Elf Aquitaine, as well as ExxonMobil that the claim of Guyane-Essequiba was resurrected.
Former UN ambassadors Odeen Ishmael, Rudy Insanally as well as former PNC Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge have comprehensively and with professional acumen articulated Guyana’s rights, interests and projection for peace. From all reports, the facilitator of the Argyle Agreement, the Hon. Ralph Gonsalves has not condemned Caracas for the March 1 provocation; however, with reliable, accurate CARICOM support, Mr. Gonsalves has signaled that the incursion of Guyana’s EEZ is a threat to peace in the region.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Rodney
