There comes a point where patience, though virtuous, must give way to clarity.
The ongoing inconsistencies displayed by some leaders within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) regarding the Guyana–Venezuela border controversy have become not only noticeable, but deeply troubling. For our fellow Guyanese, this is not an abstract diplomatic issue it is a matter of our sovereignty, identity, and national survival.
Our country has chosen the path of law. Under the leadership of former presiden David Granger and its continuation under President Irfaan Ali, our country has demonstrated maturity, restraint, and an unshakable belief in international legal order by placing the matter before the International Court of Justice. This decision reflects not weakness, but strength, strength rooted in confidence that justice must be determined by law, not by military might, provocation, symbolism, or force.
President Ali’s stewardship on this issue has been clear, consistent, and resolute. At every juncture, he has affirmed Guyana’s sovereignty, defended its territorial integrity, and engaged the international community with dignity and purpose. His leadership has ensured that Guyana speaks with one voice, calm, firm, and grounded in principle even in the face of actions designed to provoke or undermine.
Yet, even as Guyana maintains this principled posture, we are confronted with developments close to home that raise legitimate concern. The open engagement with Venezuelan leadership particularly when accompanied by symbolic displays provocatively asserting claim over the Essequibo region of our country cannot be dismissed as trivial.
Symbols matter. Silence, too, carries meaning and quite frankly speaks loudly.
It is within this context that the posture of some CARICOM leaders, “friends and family” must be examined not out of hostility, but out of a necessary commitment to principle.
We have long been told that CARICOM stands as a family, united by shared values: respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law, and commitment to peace. But family, if it is to mean anything, must be consistent. Principle cannot be situational. It cannot shift depending on who is being engaged or what interests are at stake.
As the well respected Nelson Mandela wisely reminded us, “we cannot change our principles depending on who we are dealing with.” This is not merely a moral observation it is a standard by which leadership must be judged, especially within a community that prides itself on shared values.
This is why clarity of leadership matters.
In this regard, the position taken by Kamla Persad-Bissessar stands out. At a time when ambiguity seemed convenient, she chose instead to be bold and unequivocal, publicly affirming support for Guyana’s sovereignty, not merely through collective statements, but through her own voice.That level of forthrightness is not divisive; it is principled.
It also lends weight to her earlier assertion that CARICOM is, at times, “factional”. Whether one agrees entirely or not, recent developments suggest that the observation warrants serious reflection. CARICOM must not fail.
Let us also be honest with ourselves. Friendship among nations is not measured by eloquence, nor by the ease with which leaders invoke shared cultural icons. It is measured by consistency especially when principle is tested. Those who speak well and bold are not always those who stand firm when it matters.
Guyana understands that every state must pursue its own interests. That is the nature of international relations. However, we must also be clear-eyed in assessing the implications of proximity, particularly when partners engage closely with those who openly challenge our sovereignty.
This is not a call for division. It is a call for coherence.
Guyana’s position, as consistently articulated by President Ali, remains unwavering. We respect the sovereignty of all nations. We respect the right of our Caribbean brothers and sisters to engage whom they choose. But we also expect that the principles we collectively proclaim, sovereignty, law, and mutual respect are not diluted by contradiction or convenience.
And let there be no misunderstanding:
Guyana will never, never compromise on it’s Essequibo.
This is not rhetoric. It is reality.
At this defining moment, the credibility of CARICOM will not be measured by its communiqués, but by the consistency of its conduct. For small states like ours, principle is not a luxury it is our shield.
The time has come for clarity.