PRESIDENT David Granger back in 2015 had called on the United Nations to help in protecting small states from being bullied by more powerful countries. It was a timely reminder that while much has changed in the world, some problems never go away.
Unequal economic development brings with it unequal power. And unequal power has been a licence for bullying by stronger states. The United Nations came into being with the expressed objective of making the world community a safer place for all. But the presence of the UN has not deterred some powerful countries from getting their way, especially when it comes to relations with less powerful countries.

Defence of the weak against the strong is a contested political phenomenon. Most powerful western countries reject it as an integral role of government. They argue that to assume such a role is to diminish the freedom of the individual. Such argument assumes a level of equality in society that is virtually non-existent. Equality of opportunity and an equal playing field are not a natural outgrowth of the free market—they have to be engineered. But engineering in politics and economics flies in the face of the accepted notion of freedom.

It is not surprising, therefore, that, that ideological outlook is transferred to international relations. The very structure of the UN, whereby powerful countries have an absolute veto is evidence of this thinking. This structural marginalisation of weak countries in the premier international organisation opens up space for bullying of small states by stronger ones.
Venezuela, by virtue of time of independence and a stronger economy, is much more powerful than Guyana. It is a country that has never been shy of using its economic power as a form of hegemony. In so doing, it mimics what is accepted behaviour in international relations.

Small, vulnerable countries such as Guyana are at the mercy of hegemons, global and regional. They lack the economic strength to match the hegemons militarily. Such countries have to depend on the more powerful allies for defence of their territories. Powerful countries rush to the defence of weak countries,only if they deem such countries to be geopolitically strategic or if they have economic interests there. President Granger had called on the UN to take on that task in a serious and systematic way. The issue is whether the UN, as currently constituted, has the will to do so. It all comes down to thinking—do powerful countries believe in a collective duty of the strong to defend the weak?

Venezuela would cease to torment Guyana only if it knows that it would pay a heavy price for so doing. And its recent action suggests that it does not think it will pay such a price. It has used its economic power to mute some of Guyana’s sister-allies in CARICOM. And it is obviously banking on the belief that the powerful countries would not come to Guyana’s defence, unless they consider our country to be geopolitically strategic. While Venezuela is aware that the USA is perhaps the only powerful country that may have an interest in standing in its way, it knows that the USA is tied up in other parts of the world and may not see defence of Guyana as important to its own interests.

In such circumstances, Guyana was correct to seek support and assistance from all quarters, in particular the UN. In that regard, President Granger’s call for the UN to adhere to the principle of defence of the weak in word and deed is a call for a new International Relations praxis that, if adopted, could serve as a deterrence to wanton aggression by regional hegemons such as Venezuela and in the process, guarantee small states such as Guyana some degree of security.