RETIRED diplomat and former Guyana Ambassador to Venezuela Odeen Ishmael has flayed the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) for what he describes as its lukewarm response to the recent flare-up of the decades-old border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela. He said, too, that the organisation’s approach of staying silent appears to be losing its effectiveness.Ishmael, in a column appearing in this newspaper, said that in light of all that has been happening in Venezuela’s relations with its eastern and western neighbours, one would have expected that the South American Defence Council (SADC)—comprising UNASUR’s ministers responsible for defence and security matters—to at least call for peaceful solutions, the easing of tensions, and the safeguarding of the territorial integrity of aggrieved member states. “It must be noted that the main objectives of the SADC is, inter alia, to support the establishment of a zone of peace in South America, and reinforcing regional cooperation for the sovereign control of natural resources,” Ishmael wrote.
Querying how effective is UNASUR in dealing with these border problems, Ishmael said that a few years ago, most of the members agreed to remove visa restrictions against each other, and there was much optimism that political integration would eventually lead to the disappearance of border disputes and controversies. “But this does not project itself as a premier objective of the integration process any longer. There is also disinclination by the more powerful members from taking leadership roles in dealing with developing crises in border regions. Actually, strong leadership within the bloc seems to be sorely lacking. Brazil, previously regarded as a power-player, and Argentina have been relatively quiet, and having abstained from the OAS resolution in August, may not want to involve themselves in helping to smooth out regional border issues.”
He said that by remaining silent on Venezuela’s expanded claim to Guyana’s territory, UNASUR appears to be losing its effectiveness and vibrancy in pronouncing on crucial issues affecting its members. “It did act when the presidents of Ecuador and Uruguay mediated the meeting between Maduro and Santos in September, even though no immediate solutions were achieved. However, a similar action relative to Guyana and Venezuela has not been forthcoming. Is it because Guyana is a relatively small country in physical size, population, and economy that a threat of usurpation of its territory is ignored, because no one wants to tread on the toes of the larger and more powerful Venezuela? Or is it that the legitimacy of Guyana’s territorial and maritime boundaries is influencing the organisation to adopt a “hands-off” position?” Ishmael asked.
He said that taking into consideration Colombia’s failure to get the OAS foreign ministers to intervene on its border crisis, UNASUR no doubt may adopt a similar position if Guyana makes a formal request to the organisation.
“And since UNASUR generally requires consensus before it acts, an opposing opinion from Venezuela will result in the rejection of any such request. But Venezuela was prepared for UNASUR’s involvement back in July, when Maduro optimistically announced that a meeting was proposed to be held last August. Thus, there is no visible impediment in the way of the continental bloc, and the citizens of both Guyana and Venezuela continue to wait expectantly to see what will happen,” Ishmael shared.
Guyana has so far received support from a number of organisations and countries as it pushes to safeguard its territorial integrity. Notable among those organisations are the Commonwealth and CARICOM.
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge, who will be attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later this month, said that the body is set to consider and ratify a declaration in support of Guyana’s stance at the meeting in Malta, from November 27 -29. The declaration is one compiled by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) comprising foreign ministers from nine member countries. He explained that it was assembled after Guyana had reached out in May of this year to the Commonwealth. Guyana had reported to the group that Venezuela had issued a decree which purported to annex all of Guyana’s territorial sea, its exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf. “…these are illegalities and therefore, we drew it to their attention and the Commonwealth Secretary- General condemned the action; he restated the Commonwealth’s support for borders of Guyana which is based on a treaty that Guyana itself was a party to, and which Venezuela falsely tells the public that it is a treaty that is null and void,” Minister Greenidge said.
He noted that, “Nobody has decided that the treaty is null and void except for Venezuela, and till such time as a lawful body pronounces on it, Venezuela has no right to be making these claims.” For its part, Greenidge noted that the Commonwealth, having been apprised of Guyana’s controversy with Venezuela, has over the years included on its Heads of Government meeting agenda as a matter of form, the issue of the controversy.
“We do not have to arrive each year and ask for it to be examined, it is on the agenda and, they have been reporting biennially,” he said. He expressed that what makes this forthcoming meeting different is the declaration that would be laid by the CMAG.
Minister Greenidge explained that this group had looked at the matter and reported on it on the margins of the UN General Assembly. He said that they then prepared a declaration that was approved and, this he said, is the declaration that is now to be presented at the Heads of Government Meeting for consideration. He pointed out however that on the basis of the events that would have taken place since September and October, when the report was compiled and reported on at the UN General Assembly, in considering the declaration at the Heads of Government meeting; chances are that the declaration may be modified.