HERE are the words of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a speech he delivered at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in London on December 2, 2024:
“Against the backdrop of these dangerous times, the idea that we must choose between our allies, that somehow we’re with either America or Europe, is plain wrong,” I reject it utterly. The national interest demands that we work with both.”

Starmer said these words after it began circulating in British political circles that threat of the use of tariffs by President-elect Trump will upset the EU, making Britain’s relationship with both partners difficult and the UK will eventually have to choose sides.

There are two dimensions of Mr Starmer’s position that holds vital instructions for Guyana and countries in the Global South. The first is the perspective that a country must not choose sides between two friends if there is a falling out between those two friends. The second dimension holds significant value for the making of foreign policy in Guyana.
According to the UK Prime Minister, foreign policy rests on the edifice of national interest. The concept of national interest is one of the most enduring beliefs in the history of relations among nation-states.

It is a concept that lies at the heart of understanding state behaviour in international affairs. There is no scope in a newspaper article to elaborate on the definition of national interest, but briefly it means that every international act of a country must be contextualised on its relevance and importance to the ontology of the nation.

Two examples should suffice and as a Third World academic, I will use examples from the Third World. When Cuba embraced Forbes Burnham’s government and awarded Mr Burnham Cuba’s highest national award, the Jose Marti Award, leftwing and socialist academics in the Third World were disappointed because the relationship between Cuba and Cheddi Jagan consisted of immense solidarity.

Cuba reasoned that national interest dictated that Cuba work with Burnham because Guyana was helping Cuba find acceptance in the Caribbean, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and by extension the Third World.

The second example relates to the Eastern CARICOM islands siding with the US over the American invasion of Grenada in 1983, even though Grenada was a CARICOM family member.
It was the acceptance of national interest by the newly independent states that led them to join and strengthen the NAM. For these post-colonial states, natural interest revolved not around geopolitical instincts, but geo-economic needs.

NAM countries argued it made no sense aligning with the Western bloc or the Soviet bloc, but to approach the great powers of the world with assistance where it was most needed –development and nation-building.

The NAM died decades ago after the success of the West’s invention of neo-liberalism and globalisation with the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the platform on which these two fortresses rested.

Before the rise of China as a superpower and BRICS, the West saw no geo-strategic, geo-political and trade value in the Third World, so these countries were left to languish, especially after the West used the WTO to withdraw preferential markets from the Third World.

A quote from Guyanese diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders, is bitingly relevant. He wrote: “The 14-nation independent states of the Caribbean Community have been at the bottom of US official development assistance for decades. In 2019, for instance, total US foreign assistance globally was US$47 billion, of which collectively, CARICOM countries received US$338 million or 0.7 percent. For emphasis, that is less than one percent of the global total. Haiti alone received US$268 million of that US$338 million intended for all 14 CARICOM states, leaving the other 13 to share US$70 million only. For nine of the 13 countries, the sum provided did not amount to US$1 million.”

This state of affairs has changed profoundly after China became a superpower. China has been a generous aid donor to those 14 members of CARICOM. What the Global South has learnt is what the UK Prime Minister referred to – “these dangerous times.” Added to that should be –“these uncertain times.”

What the Global South is doing is a subtle resuscitation of the spirit of the NAM. The Third World is not prepared to take sides in a world of hegemonic resurgence. The watchwords are- “development economics.”

So China and BRICS will not be shunted in favour of foreign-policy alignment. The then Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken asked Malaysia to dilute its relationship with China and he was rebuffed.

The future of Guyana’s foreign policy should include the perspective of the UK Prime Minister – don’t take sides because national interest dictates that you shouldn’t. Guyana with its strategic reach because of oil, should avoid choosing sides. The US, China and Cuba are friends of Guyana. There should be no preferential swing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.