Dear Editor,
There is much speculation that the visit to Guyana of the US Secretary of State is about (military action against) Venezuela and an “October Surprise” – reference to an event that would help change the course of the American Presidential election to favour Donald Trump, who is trailing in opinion polls.
Some are querying why the Secretary of State is coming.
The Secretary of State is third in line to the US Presidency; we should be honoured by his presence. Guyanese-Americans I conversed with are pleased that the Secretary of State is going to their former homeland. They advise a cementing of ties, as do I. Almost every supporter of the PPP in the USA and those I spoke with in Guyana are in favour of closer relations with America, and are pleased that Mr. Pompeo is coming to Guyana. They feel the PPP-led Government should attempt to forge some sort of practical security cooperation arrangement with America, including in the greater Caribbean region.
Suddenly, there is a lot of US Foreign Policy and Presidential elections experts among Guyanese, including probably those who never studied foreign policy. Guyana will not be part of any “October Surprise”. Guyanese may help determine the outcome of the elections in Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Georgia, which in turn will determine the outcome of the Presidency, and there won’t be any surprises. (Five of those will likely go to one candidate, as per polls, and the other one to another candidate, sealing the outcome; no “October Surprise”).
I believe Venezuela will be discussed in bilateral talks, but not in terms of military action and/or using Guyana’s soil for planned action. Rather, it will come up in terms of human rights, and Guyana should be praised for humanitarian response to the thousands of Venezuelans who crossed the border for survival.
Even if the US were to ask for Guyana’s support to promote democracy in Venezuela, what is the problem? US restored democracy in Guyana. Should we not return same? Had it not been for US assistance in 1992, Guyana would have remained a dictatorship till this day. And had it not been for US intervention from March 3 through August 1, 2020, Guyana would have become a dictatorship, and there might have been a civil war, or we would still be determining who won the elections.
For a little knowledge on politics, US Foreign Policy is a course taught in American Politics that is a mandatory sub-field (for PhD students) in Political Science. I taught the topic in American Government courses. The US Secretary of State conducts foreign policy on behalf of the President, who is Chief Diplomat. The Secretary is the counter equivalent of Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, although they are not relative equals because there is no balance among two unequal powers. (Balance would apply in US relations with say Russia, China, UK, France, India, Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil, and other big powers).
The Secretary carries out the policies of the US Government. He travels on behalf of the President, meeting world leaders and/or his equivalent to discuss issues that serve US interests. The primary objective is to bolster relations with the US and/or resolve issues that hinder an improvement of relations or affect trade, human rights, democracy, et al. This is done through a variety of ways, primarily using the carrot-and-stick approach. In the case of Guyana, it will be primarily carrot, as there is no need to apply the stick because the new Guyana Government is not belligerent or obstinate to want to be clobbered, and has not (openly) opposed US geo-strategic interests.
To those who have short memories, or are ungrateful and are suggesting that Pompeo is coming to town to take advantage of Guyana, is it okay for Guyanese to take advantage of America’s generosity and hospitality, but not vice versa? There are more Guyanese in USA than in Guyana, so who is exploiting whom? Who provided a home to Guyanese during the 28-year dictatorship? Who restored democracy in Guyana in 1992 and 2020? Who fed (PL 480 programme) Guyanese during the period of mass starvation and banning of basic foods?
If America had not opened up to us, would the tens of thousands have gotten a tertiary education and employment to send over US$400M annually in remittances from 1980s to now, and permitted tens of millions of visits to Guyana during same period, spending tens of billions of US dollars?
I remember very well the small group of us descending on Washington appealing for US intervention in Guyana to rescue the people from the dictatorship. Those of us who studied US foreign policy or international relations (like Baytoram Ramharack, Vassan Ramracha, etc.) knew that without US assistance, democracy would not be restored to Guyana. That is why our small group made that call since 1977, when we launched our Guyana pro-democracy movement in America, perhaps the only group that consistently called for closer relations between our two countries. It was Jimmy Carter, Congress and the Bush Administration that restored democracy to the homeland.
Some talk of sovereignty. They don’t understand the modern meaning of the term. That is a relic of the decolonisation period, and right after obtaining independence, of the Cold War Third World. It has little relevance today, as countries have open borders.
Globalisation has shrunk sovereignty. At any rate, for small territories or weak countries like Guyana and others in Caribbean, there is no such thing as sovereignty.
Legal sovereignty is meaningless in a world of political realism. Today, there is shared sovereignty because of globalised issues and common interests.
Here are some points that I think should be part of the discussion with the Secretary and his team, all having to do with mutual interest pertaining to national security: military assistance to counter border threats, and oil exploration; cooperation against drug trafficking, human trafficking, and money laundering; trade expansion (a free trade treaty, so that our products can be sold in America, and Guyanese in turn can purchase American products); increased cultural and educational exchanges; presence of a base to deter those who may have designs on Guyana’s territory, or to engage in terrorist activities or those that pose threats to democracy; widening the sanctions (and visa cancellation) net to include those who were involved in race violence in West Berbice; greater support for democracy; forensic assistance to investigate the three killings in Cotton Tree area; grant for economic recovery; combating high-tech crimes, including cyber security; modernising Guyana’s security forces, and increasing their collaboration with USA; diaspora linkage in America; sharing of appropriate technology to combat cross- border crime; establishing DEA office in Guyana; joint US-Guyana Defence Patrol on the border and on the coast.
In opposition to Prof Trotz and opponents of the Secretary’s visit, I welcome the Secretary, and urge a deepening of our relations with America, including joining in any effort to promote democracy in the greater region, as well as in combating international crimes.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Vishnu Bisram
