Dear Editor,
The USA historically since before WW II has had a geostrategic presence in Guyana and its waters and the region to secure its national interests. Geostrategy relates to the importance of geographic location to protect a nation’s interests (economic and political). A nation conducts its foreign policy towards that area to secure its interests (access to resources, protecting trade routes, business, etc.) and even seeks to influence political outcomes that would favor its interests. American military has been known to patrol the greater Guyana area and the region to protect its overall interests and even acted decisively against regimes that threatened American business interests. So, the intervention in Venezuela should come as no surprise to political leaders and analysts of foreign policy and international relations.
Readers are reminded that President Trump has attacked Syria, Yemen, Iran, among others, and now Venezuela with more to come. The President has put a claim to Panama, Greenland, Canada, etc. and to shape Gaza and has threatened dissenting leaders in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Colombia. There are those in USA and in Guyana who feel Guyanese should ‘volunteer’ Guyana as a gift to the President since he has virtually eliminated Maduro (Venezuela)’s threat to Guyana territory and sovereignty.
Critics of President Trump’s policy say it runs counter to principles of International Relations. The critics have rightly emphasized diplomacy and multilateral engagement instead of use of military force; the latter must be an option of last resort. Can critics point to which big power since the Vienna Convention ever respect the principles of IR? Because big powers hardly ever behaved responsibly to ensure good governance, there has been many conflicts globally. In IR, “might makes right! Do as I say or else I will squeeze you”!
President Trump did what any responsible major power would when it feels that its interests have been threatened – use force to remove the threat. Other Presidents did same in Latin America and Guyana in 1953, 1964, and 2015. And tomorrow if the US feels Guyana or T&T or Colombia or Nicaragua is a serious threat to its immediate interests, that threat will be erased. It is political pragmatism or ‘realpolitik’ as the great German American political theorist Hans Morgenthau schooled political scientists. That is the nature of IR of a big power! The Soviets also acted accordingly as is Russia today except that Russia has been a weak power following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its unwise invasion of Ukraine. Make no mistake about the exercise of power by big nations! And military intervention is not always necessary. The Americans have been the best in covert operations to remove an irritant or professedly anti-American regime as Guyana was.
It is interesting that there have hardly been any condemnations or critique or anti-American public commentary among the communist Guyanese on the US military intervention to topple the oppressive regime. A few Guyanese and regional nationalists have taken a principled position on non-interventionism, and they are lauded for their courage for they could be targeted for sanctions. They are motivated by ethical implications of military actions that result in major destruction and that claim lives. They understandably abhor militarism. Unlike the few nationalists that publicly voiced opposition to US intervention in Venezuela, the communists and other anti-Americans have been muted with a few making statements that are largely ‘neutral’ in sharp contrast with voices during the 1960s thru 1989 when they railed against “the American imperialists”. The communists don’t want to lose their American visas and perks of office. Vice President Jagdeo wisely removed communism from the PPP’s constitution; that ideology got the party into trouble preventing it from assuming office for 28 years.
Guyanese and others need to understand that in matters having to do with national security of USA, dissenting voices of moralists, religious figures, leaders in the region, communists, other nationalists, and all opponents of USA are simply ignored. America comes first and why shouldn’t it! Russia and China behave the same way in their backyard. Critics of the intervention in Venezuela have to understand the new realities of American politics and foreign policy under a President who is not bashful or restrained in projecting American superpower status and dominance of the globe and especially regionally. It is the current global realpolitik. President Trump has an America First policy and a more aggressive approach to foreign affairs than his predecessors. His decisiveness, influenced by neo-conservatives who revel at projecting and using military power abroad, is a critical factor in his national geo-strategic security decision-making. President Trump does what he feels is in America’s best interests regardless of what regional or international or spiritual players think, say, or do.