Dear Editor,
Reference is drawn to your editorial, “Guyana and the Shield of the Americas” (Mar 10), a Americas grouping of nations launched by President Trump last Saturday in Miami. The editorial and critics view the Shield as a neo-colonial project that fosters regional polarization or division. The Shield is intended to create an alliance to improve regional security and combat drug cartels that have been threatening sovereignty and health of nations. Those are noble objectives, addressing essential challenges in Guyana and T&T around the region. Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago have been supportive of President Trump’s actions, primarily because both face threats from Venezuela against which the US launched its military operations; we have had a persistent drug problem. T&T PM Kamla Persaad Bissessar has been more vocal in support for Trump than President Ali for reasons not important to Guyana.
You characterize the grouping as divisive and urge unity among CARICOM and other small and non-aligned states as under the NAM where Guyana played a leading role during the 1970s thru 1990s in negotiating with the US or other superpower. NAM was founded during a different era under different challenges by the larger non-aligned states – India, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, and Ghana — in 1961, supported by Cheddi Jagan; Burnham came on board in the 1970s. There were two superpowers then with a balance of power; now there is a lone superpower under the leadership of a President who projects power and America First. There is virtually no unity among small nations today; each seeks what is best for itself in negotiations with USA. The larger nations are also making their own deals with Trump who is shaping a new world order on trade and security using tariff.
You compared the current international political strategy of USA to that used by imperial powers during the anti-colonial struggle. That comparison is not fair. The US regards those nations that work with it. It is true that US invited only a dozen nations to the summit, linked by ideology (right of center) with USA and politics (supportive of American military actions in the region). The American led actions are directed at combating drug cartels through military cooperation, not a continuation of colonial type domination. The non-invited nations have not been supportive of actions to combat drug trafficking across borders. Why should the other nations be invited to Trump’s party if they are opposed to his policy?
The Shield is characterized by a military focus – intelligence sharing and armed intervention to combat cartels and gangs. There is no mention of targeting governments not in sync with Trump. But it is also expected that the nations will work with US to counter China’s growing economic influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Guyana where Guyanese businesses have been complaining about Chinese practices that undermine the former.
A valid criticism of the Shield would be its failure if the USA did not address underlying social issues and poverty in the region that drive people to narco-trafficking and smuggling of precious metals and minerals. There is also no mention of American support to combat corruption that eats away resources of many nations. There is no mention of a long-term commitment and no talk of financial resources – only military cooperation. Will America fund the military or police operations against the cartels and mafia and the corrupt? Also, there is no mention of the establishment of a Secretariat to manage the Shield. Will it be managed only by the US (an Envoy appointed by Trump) without a Secretariat comprising of representations of the 13 nations? The Shield should not be only about border or military or geo-security. Addressing poverty, crimes, and corruption are also about security.