Celac and the zone of peace

The heads of government of Celac – the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States ‒ met in St Vincent on March 1st. The organization comprises 33 nations and was formed at a time when the continent had far more of a left tint than it has today. At the point of its foundation in 2011 it was seen by leaders such as Hugo Chávez of Venezuela as an alternative to the OAS which he thought should be replaced, and as a means of ending US dominance in the region. For his part, Rafael Correa of Ecuador wanted the formation of a new human rights commission to replace the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights of the OAS. The more practical heads, however, saw Celac not as a replacement for the OAS, but as an instrument for resolving differences between the members, as well as for the encouragement of regional trade and economic development.

During a period when the right-wing leaders Iván Duque and Jair Bolsonaro came to office in Colombia and Brazil respectively, they withdrew their countries from Celac, the former writing it off as an “ideological forum.” But with the accession of President Gustavo Petro and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in more recent times, the two nations rejoined.

It was at a summit in Cuba in 2014 that the region was declared a “peace zone,” a proclamation which became something of a refrain during this latest meeting of Celac leaders in St Vincent. UN General Secretary António Guterres set the tone by saying, “Latin America and the Caribbean have shown how uniting for peace is possible …” making specific reference both to the peace process in Colombia as well as to the Argyle Declaration. He went on to make a significant observation: “And we also know that peace is far more than the absence of armed conflict.” Guyana of all the countries in the region certainly knows that; living under the threat of invasion is not peace.

Different leaders gave the term ‘peace’ varying interpretations, Cuban President Miguel DíazCanel, for example, being reported as saying that defending peace was defending the right of every people to freely choose their political model and their own path to economic and social development. Some of the democratic Caricom countries might not have been altogether comfortable with that definition, although whatever they think of Cuba’s political system they would not subscribe to its overthrow by external forces.

But then there was the host and outgoing pro tem President of Celac, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, who according to Telesur said that peace was anti-imperialistic, and that regional peacekeeping was an anti-imperialist and antihegemonic task. This was a line which echoed that of Bolivian President Luis Arce, who was

reported as recommending strengthening Celac in the face of the interests of hegemonic powers. But he did not leave it there; he warned of a new wave of interference in Latin America in the form of hostile actions by the US and UK which “seek to break the peace that we have established in the region.”

What he said next must have taken President Irfaan Ali off guard. He accused Guyana of allowing the US to conduct military air exercises, and the UK marine ones following the signing of the Argyle Declaration designed to ease tensions between Guyana and Venezuela. The Guyanese head of state would probably have been prepared for an ambush from President Nicolás Maduro, but in the event all was sweetness and light between the two leaders. President Ali presented Mr Maduro with Guyanese rum, and the latter made a similar gesture in the form of a gift of products from Venezuela.

Clearly the allegations were pre-arranged with Miraflores, so that Bolivia would act as a proxy for Venezuela and the latter would appear as forbearing and peace-loving in a regional public setting. It was presumably hoped that the fact that the allegation came from outside Venezuela would give it greater credibility. It might be noted that last month Bolivian Foreign Minister Celinda Sosa was in Caracas to ‘strengthen bilateral relations,’ but whether this included some discussion of the Celac meeting due two weeks later we shall probably never know.

What can be said is that Bolivia has been close to Venezuela since the days of Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez, and when President Arce was in Caracas last September, he described the two countries as great allies. In addition, La Paz has long been opposed to the OAS and sought its replacement, and is particularly hostile to its head, the Chilean Luis Almagro, who has supported Guyana in the face of Venezuelan aggression.

President Ali in tandem with the other leaders emphasized the importance of maintaining Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, and gave the assurance that peace remained his country’s priority. “Guyana and everything we do is built on peace,” he was quoted as saying, going on to give the assurance that, “our territory will never ever be used as a platform of war or for war.”

And as for Bolivia, he advised regional states to first ascertain the facts before coming to conclusions, because “statements that are not based on facts can only add to destabilisation.”

And as far as the air surveillance and sea exercise raised by that country were concerned, these were not in any way connected to the Guyana-Venezuela controversies, but were part of “bilateral and

regional security cooperation.” He followed this by the eminently pertinent observation that no mention had been made of incursion into Guyana’s territorial space.

But this is the essence of the problem. Bolivia, fronting for Venezuela would like to present Guyana as the provocative state. Some others, perhaps, would at least seek to categorise both countries as being equally guilty. Yet there is only one nation which is threatening the region as a zone of peace, and that is Venezuela. Guyana has no claims on anyone’s territory, and has taken the peaceful route of a recourse to the ICJ to decide the validity of the 1899 Award. Venezuela’s dishonesty knows no bounds, since she has persuaded other nations that this route is not in accord with the Geneva Agreement, which it very much is.

So when Mr Gonsalves and others so glibly talk of peace being anti-imperialistic, they should look in the direction of Caracas. In so far as Venezuela covets three-fifths of our land space, and behaves still as if it is prepared to act on its avarice, it has to be said it is the only imperialistic Celac nation threatening the peace at present.

Inevitably in the final declaration of the summit, Argyle came up for fulsome mention: “We commend the pro tempore presidency of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as well as Brazil and the presidency of the Caricom for organizing the meeting for dialogue and peace between the presidents of Guyana and Venezuela and applaud the resulting Argyle Declaration in all its elements.”

One only hopes that while Celac congratulates itself on the Argyle Declaration, some of its members privately at least recognize it was not a case of making peace between two potentially warring states, rather it was a matter of arriving at a formula to persuade Venezuela not to invade Guyana. That under Argyle this country too has had to commit to keeping the peace as if we were equally guilty for the tension, is the price we have had to pay to avoid invasion.

On a different note, Guyana clearly has a lot of work to do to explain to the Latin countries in Celac in particular, what the real issues are with Venezuela, if they want this region as a genuine zone of peace without all the pretence.