To confront the existential threat from Venezuela to our national security and territory, I had suggested that, as part of our response, we create a military base in Essequibo, to which we allow the US access. Strong objections were raised to any American presence here. One professor (“Guyana, Beware the Western Proxy-State Trap”, Tamanisha John, SN 12-25-23) scoffed that there could be a “war” between Venezuela and Guyana because of the overwhelming material superiority of the former. One wonders if the professor also did not consider Hitler overrunning Poland in a month in a “war”, and what precisely did that mean to the 66,000 Poles killed and Poland partitioned. Is the Professor suggesting that we simply surrender to Venezuela’s “superior” numbers, rather than preparing for the asymmetrical response I suggested, in conjunction with engaging the US, which has reasons of its own to oppose Maduro?
It appears that, according to the Professor, we misunderstand the nature of the conflict pursued by Maduro and Venezuela against us. It has nothing to do with Maduro creating a diversion through stoking nationalistic emotions by annexing Essequibo, to remain in power. She declares: “the crisis which unfolded between Guyana and Venezuela is a crisis of how states become integrated into preferred regimes of Western security, extractivism, and financial governance.” More specifically, she contends that “because Guyana is a captured state by ExxonMobil…it was the likelihood of western intervention, and not “war” between Guyana and Venezuela, that was the real feared possibility over the past (December).”
But all of this flies in the face of the facts. Venezuela has nursed a victim mentality of being robbed of Essequibo by the British, and has waged war in all its forms since 1962, when it claimed to the UNGA that the 1899 Arbitral Award was “null and void”. They waged economic warfare when they blocked World Bank financing for the Upper Mazaruni Hydro-Electric Project. Back in 2012, long before Exxon had struck oil in 2015 and supposedly “captured” the state, Chavez had deployed the Venezuelan Navy to seize an Andarco survey ship in a block off our Atlantic waters. Maduro’s actions have been even more provocative, and it is possible that he was yanking the Americans’ chain to also rally Venezuelans around him.
Then, of course, when it comes to “western extractivism” isn’t Maduro turning cartwheels to attract western multinationals like Chevron, Spain’s Repsol, Italy’s Eni and Dutch Shell to return? What Maduro has realized is his mentor Chavez’s unilateral reduction of the foreign companies’ share of oil profits after their massive investments was a mistake – call it “state capture” or what you will. As Marx pointed out, “Man make their own history, but not in circumstances of their making”. And this is also true of states. In dealing with extant contingencies, states may be forced to make decisions that are at odds with some interests, but further others they have prioritised. Back in the 1980s, China’s Chairman Deng said, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice”. This is the essence of principled pragmatism – not mere expediency – that is necessary to navigate the world in which we find ourselves.
A blogger also criticised my proposal from another angle by pointing out a seeming contradiction after I had described, some time ago, Quijano’s theory of the “coloniality of power”, in which we are enmeshed. Quijano demonstrated that while “colonialism” might have ended, its structural features, dubbed “coloniality”, remains firmly in place. He posits that we were all conscripted by a European-defined “modernity” that began in 1492 with the conquest of the Americas. It developed and extended the structures of power, control, and hegemony that emerged during the era of colonialism. He posits that the coloniality of power takes three forms: systems of (racial) hierarchies, systems of knowledge, and cultural systems. But we would know that these hierarchies have now permeated the entire world – not just the west. Witness the Chinese distaste for coloured people and their insistence on the “Chinese way”.
We have pointed out that we must pragmatically enter relationships with the US – or any country, for that matter – with our eyes wide open. Every country will act to further its own interests, and so should we. I have argued for a military relationship with the US fully aware of the downside risks. However, I do believe that, unlike what Prof John asserts, we cannot count on the “progressiveness” of Maduro’s ideology for our security.
