Dear Editor,

THANKFULLY, all the detained Guyanese fishermen and their boats have returned safely to the shores of Guyana and to their families at home. All Guyanese are relieved by the turn of events after a grueling period of tense wait and nail-biting suspense. The fishermen’s families were more intimately affected and troubled, while the Government of Guyana was politically worried with encumbrances from responsibilities. Perhaps, most, if not all Guyanese, were tormented by the chain of circumstances and became transgressed with reserved unfriendliness. Caught between a rock and a shore, Guyanese and Venezuelan citizens were embroiled in mixed feelings, and looked on at arm’s length, hoping and praying for a quick and peaceful resolution. There are many combined families from both shores, products of ethnic interactions and marital knots. Many Guyanese are still residing in Venezuela, and Guyana is the home of many Venezuelan immigrants. In the political turmoil in Venezuela, people fled the Maduro dictatorship and economic downturn to seek refuge in the safe haven of Guyana’s bosom.  Venezuela did reciprocate in kind during the Burnhamite days when Guyanese were escaping the hardship of brute force and ignorance from a prejudiced government to be accepted with open arms by Venezuela.

There are many articles crediting the determination and devotion of the Guyana Government to vigilantly pursue diplomatic channels for the safe release of the Guyanese fishermen, and the undaunted input of the international community, supporting Guyana’s stance and at the said time putting pressure on the Venezuelan Government. On the other hand, there are publications indicating that it was at the “whim and fancy” of President Maduro who authorised and ordered their release. If so be the case, did President Maduro bow to the reality of the situation, and acted in the only practical manner for mutual peace? Did he bow to international pressure, or simply the advice of China or Russia? Did he fear the unnecessary aggravation of further sanction or aggression from the USA? Did he reconsider the speculated unfriendly retaliation from the United Nations? Did he surmise that the anticipated eventuality of the ICJ legal consideration for

Venezuela’s unjustified action? At the back of his mind, maybe he is worried that in the final analysis, the ICJ will be the final seat to pronounce on the border issue. Perhaps he remembered his fellow Venezuelans residing in political and economic autonomy in a friendly Guyanese society, who are in turn, supporting residents back home directly or indirectly. Maduro’s uncanniness could have been an early and uncalled for testing point for Joe Biden to quickly reconsider and implement America’s foreign policy. Taiwan’s issue and Myanmar’s situation are also providing sleepless nights.  Regardless of the reason or the situation, this change-of-heart is most welcoming for all stakeholders, and all are much relieved by its outcome. The uncomfortableness has momentarily subsided, and the threat of military advancement become less pronounced. Is this satisfactory to all parties? Does this temporarily or permanently clear the air on mutual respect for the recognition of Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone to facilitate economic activity? Did President Maduro “lose face” or won praise from the international community? Does this bolster Guyana’s status or weakened Venezuela’s claim? At the end of the day, both governments are tempered without lifting a finger in violence, losing not a blade of grass nor one curass. Hopefully, such an ugly situation must not arise again to cause reservation, aggravation and apprehension. Consideration must be given for wary attention in the application of care and compass.

Respectfully,
Jai Lall