OPINION: Guyana and the United States, a special relationship

Freedom of the press/media is an integral dimension of democracy. In Guyana, of course, some commentators exploit such freedoms to the point of absurdity. The latest instance of this came through the pen of GHK Lall, whose opinion piece in Demerara Waves (March 29), makes a mockery of what informed, fact-based, and thoughtful journalism should look like.

Lall took it upon himself to pronounce on the visit to Guyana by US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. He is upset that President Ali stated that Guyana has a different relationship with the US compared to other states, and accordingly, the uniqueness of the relationship will afford certain privileges accorded to the US.

Lall went off on a rant stating that “Guyana has surrendered its right to be a country controlling its own destiny” and that this different relationship constitutes “…an abandonment of this country’s sovereignty.” Of course, no scorched-earth campaign can be complete without wild statements like “Guyana gets next to nothing from Exxon.”

My immediate reaction is that people should only write on what they know about. This is especially true when it concerns our national security. GHK Lall is in urgent need of some basic lessons in international politics, international security, and diplomacy.

For the man’s benefit, let us begin with a work that is more than two thousand years old – Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, with specific focus on The Melian Dialogue. In that Dialogue, the Athenians, who were at war with Sparta, approached the Melians and advised them to give up their neutrality, and accept Athenian protection. The Melians resisted. They insisted that the Athenian proposal is unfair and unjust. The powerful Athenians told the Melians that it is not so much about right and wrong in the abstract. What is at issue is that the Melians do not have the power and resources to defend themselves and that their vulnerability is to such a degree that their very sovereignty, if not existence, is at stake. Yet, the Melians decided to go on their own.

The Melians insisted that they hope for the best, to which the Athenians replied that “hope” is “danger’s comforter.” If you know the story, you are no doubt familiar with its ending. The Athenians left Melos after the meeting but came back and – “…the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves”.

Those who have studied international politics and security know that the History of the Peloponnesian War is one of the founding texts of political realism, the political philosophy that holds the view that protecting the national interest is the paramount responsibility of the state, and that states must act in the circumstances they find themselves in, rather than be guided by abstract principles or wishful thinking.

Another famous realist from ancient times was Sun Zu, a Chinese general and military strategist. One of Zu’s most important ideas is that successful strategies must always be flexible, be ready to shift and adjust based on the general balance of power that obtains, and in more military terms, also based on the battlefield (both literally and metaphorically) conditions that are at hand. “Water retains no constant shape” was an expression very much favored by Zu. It expressed his view that being fixed to a position regardless of new developments is a recipe for disaster. Like water, policies must ‘bend.’

Against the political realism of thinkers from Thucydides and Sun Zu to Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, are those who believe that there are ideas so pure that actual reality is irrelevant. For these folks, the past must also always be the only guide to future actions. One must be loyal to past positions simply because that’s the way it has always been. These are ideologues, not analysts, or theorists. GHK Lall should take note.

The fact is Guyana has been developing a special relationship with the Unites States because of shared values, the deep imbrications of our diaspora population in the US, the joint (Guyana-EMGL) development of hydrocarbon resources, and now due to the clear and well-defined threat to this country’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty by the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the commitment of the United States to stand with us.

Clearly, there is a special relationship between Guyana and the US. While the two countries are not formal allies by treaty, there are strong and clearly defined reciprocal interests that oblige each state to facilitate the other. This is likely to be in areas of economic cooperation, intelligence gathering and sharing in order to reign in transnational organized crimes and criminals, and not least, in the area of national security.

There is no doubt that Guyana will be the big beneficiary of the new structure and dynamic of cooperation. Further, special relationships always include special privileges. That’s just the way things are in the real world. Take it, or leave it.