Dear Editor,
A simpleton at best is Roopnauth Hardyal, who, in a most servile role, wrote that “To portray the brooch (Delcy Rodriguez’s) used during recent Caribbean visits as provocative ignores this broader and well-documented pattern. It risks attributing intent where there may simply be continuity.” This was in his amphigory, “Delcy Rodríguez has been wearing her brooch consistently for quite some time.”
To me, this is like manifesting “ineffective” hatred for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), as well as looking forward to a bout of personal masochistic servitude.
The background to this is that Guyanese President Dr Irfaan Ali formally wrote to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) chairman, calling the brooch a “provocative escalation”. His contention is that “broadcasting the map (on the brooch) during official regional events aims to project a false narrative of ownership”.
First things first, and this is where the Hardyals all need schooling. These emotional outbursts of a lack of patriotism stem from utter ignorance.
First things first, please! The woman herself admits to a purpose in wearing the iconic brooch. After President Ali expressed his infuriation, Acting President Rodríguez openly defended the brooch, stating she (deliberately) wears the pin to assert the map she has known her entire life, thus dismissing President Ali’s concerns as a manufactured scandal. So, it is not a manufactured scandal but a pointer to what has always been a prevailing mindset of this “interim” head, who is in desperate straits, both personally and nationally.
Personally, Delcy Rodríguez is under investigation by US and international authorities for serious issues – human rights violations, money laundering, and corruption – even though (as yet) she has not faced formal public criminal indictments in the US
Then there is the 2020 United Nations Fact-Finding Mission that concluded there were “reasonable grounds to believe” she knew or should have known about, and failed to prevent, crimes committed by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN). These crimes included arbitrary detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, and mass surveillance of civilians.
I go on that there is a drug trafficking and smuggling spectre hovering over her since US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records dating back to at least 2018 have investigated Rodríguez as a “priority target” in connection to drug trafficking, gold smuggling, and using Caribbean resorts to launder drug money.
Another point: European and US investigators are reviewing her ties to Government contracts awarded to Maduro allies like Alex Saab. She is also tied to the “Delcygate” scandal, where European investigators examined schemes involving the illegal sale of Venezuelan state gold and the embezzlement of food distribution programmes meant for impoverished citizens.
Thus, for some time now, she has been a target of international investigations and sanctions. If Azruddin Mohamed in Guyana is in hot water, she, Delcy, is in hot oil. She will have to abdicate. She can eventually choose to mitigate by being US compliant regarding aggressive intentions against Guyana (which, as she knows, will be to Venezuela’s detriment), or she can become another Maduro.
I reiterate what we already know: Guyana’s back is well covered, as high-ranking US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have warned Venezuela that attacking Guyana or American-operated energy assets (such as those of ExxonMobil) would trigger severe consequences, including the deployment of US military power.
Already, the US has bolstered its operational readiness in the region, which US officials frequently categorise as counter-narcotics operations, but analysts note serve as a major deterrent against Venezuelan adventurism. Then there is Regional Alliance, as Brazil has moved troops to its borders with Venezuela and Guyana to safeguard its own territory and deter any military escalation.
Delcy is fighting a losing cause. Apparently, the futile bombastic braggadocio of Nicolas Maduro is not sinking in.
I inform the Hardyals that the history of “brooch diplomacy” actually shows that world leaders frequently use pins to be intentionally provocative, subversive, or sharp. Rather than remaining neutral, jewellery is often weaponised as a tool of non-verbal statecraft to deliver warnings, display protest, or signal defiance without uttering a word.
For example, of which dozens can be conjured up, we have the ever-famous example of the use of a strategic, provocative piece of jewellery from the late Madeleine Albright, the first female US Secretary of State. She explicitly used her vast collection of brooches to reinforce political stances or deliver “stings” during delicate negotiations – the Serpent: After Saddam Hussein’s state-controlled media called her an “unparalleled serpent” in 1994. Thus, Albright promptly bought a diamond snake pin and wore it to her next meeting with Iraqi officials.
Then the “Hear No Evil” monkeys, as when she met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the Kremlin’s brutal military actions in Chechnya. On that occasion, she wore a pin depicting the three wise monkeys. Putin reportedly took note of her shoulder, and Albright later admitted she “probably went too far” as he was noticeably unamused.
So, Roopnauth Hardyal et al, the history of “brooch diplomacy” actually shows that world leaders frequently use pins to be intentionally provocative, subversive, or sharp. Rather than remaining neutral, jewellery is often weaponised as a tool of non-verbal statecraft to deliver warnings, display protest, or signal defiance without uttering a word.
And yes, even though Venezuelan officials have long worn symbols that included the so-called Zona en reclamación, knowing her vulnerable position personally and nationally, she should have allowed better sense to prevail. Her brooch continues the intent-grabbing Essequibo motto and is not a “now” thing, and the brooch symbolises continuity of an illegal posture. She is endangering herself and more than 80 per cent of Venezuelans, as her popularity will not withstand a “fair and free” election.