The Declaration of Argyle (Declaration) is sure to unleash a torrent of comments in Georgetown and Caracas, and other places as well. Some will be on the delightful side, others critical. I will try for the clinical. There will be this in both Guyana and Venezuela celebrating how they did well; with dissenters screaming their disappointment, and denouncements. Easy does it, bloodless is best. My concern is that from a Guyanese perspective which country gained the upper hand, which leader held fast to previously stated positions, and who what they wanted (perhaps a little bit more).
To keep things tidy, I start with some housekeeping. It is good that an atmosphere of civility generally prevailed, and both Presidents Ali and Maduro are embraced. Though there is no warmth for the maps on the undershirts of Senor Maduro’s entourage, I let that pass; and the same is done with the almost peremptory dismissal by the Venezuelan jefe of the Guyana media present. Now for my parsing of the Declaration itself.
First, Point 1: there is a hidden bomb that resides in the two words “existing controversies.” New controversies, manufactured controversies, sham controversies, unrelated controversies, even unanticipated controversies can all rear their heads (without a national owner), and lead to escalation of tensions, and deterioration of the Guyana-Venezuela relationship that is always edgy in some way or the other. Why not existing and future (unrelated and unexpected) controversies, which could provoke tensions, and return to the square one of today.
Second, I noticed in Point 2 that Venezuela succeeded in getting a prized pursuit into the Declaration: “including the Geneva Agreement.” This is, I believe, a concession on Guyana’s part that has its implications, a possible contradiction of the government’s oft-stated position about the ICJ and international law only applying. I discern a victory for Maduro and Venezuela.
Third, Point 3 is comforting, a good provision, a helpful fall back slowdown and de-escalation expression, at least in the words.
Fourth, Point 4 reinforces Guyana’s and Venezuela’s position on the ICJ. Implacable is the word, which makes me question the authenticity of the commitments by Venezuela in the second point of the Declaration, to wit, “international law.” Clearly, Maduro talks from both sides of his mouth, possibly his nose also. Here is a hypothetical that looks operative and imminent: the ICJ rules in Guyana’s favor on this border controversy, and Venezuela adheres to its dogged posture on the institution, then what role, what application and reach “international law?” It cannot be according to the whims and artifices of a leader or country, picking and choosing as suits their purposes.
Fifth, Point 5 is meaningful in the presence of “any conflict and disagreement” and “any controversy.” I interpret it as the equivalent of a ‘red phone’ or hotline. Still, there is anxiety about the word “reverse”, which means that somebody encroached, violated something, went too far. Realistically, things happen. Bottom line: there is a mechanism. The hope is that operators would be unbiased, act urgently, and resolve swiftly.
Sixth, I read Points 6 to 10, more or less, as the administrative processes, the Big Brother and good neighbors’ arrangements, and the layers of checks and follow-up actions to make the first five points of Argyle have some meaning. Of conspicuous note, this is a regional effort, other than the presence of UN Observers, which is commendable.
Moving along, there is sure to be some exhaustive spinning on both sides of the border. I think Senor Maduro bought time to step back from the brink. He also bought himself some applause. He got the 1966 Geneva Agreement enshrined in Argyle. He got the dialogue that he craved, and has been insisting upon all along. Come to think of it, I detect a national leader who got himself some respectability, albeit through the side door. It is certain that his fellows in the region will hail his maturity and statesmanship. I disagree. I have problems with his sincerity, Because what I detected in Presidente Nicolas Maduro Moros is a hustler. As much as this causes some pain, I have to say it: Nicolas Maduro outhustled Irfaan Ali.
Guyana ended up talking about many matters related to the border controversy. Guyana came out of the St Vincent talks yielding in some sensitive areas (Geneva Agreement and “dialogue”) that could come back to haunt. I admit to appreciating the dialogue part(s), and to what could be tabled, where such could help. In sum, the December 14, 2023 Declaration of Argyle was of nothing but the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy. Did Guyana’s President Ali get snookered by a crafty campesino? Or, despite the adamant lines drawn prior to the meeting, this was known all along to be what would transpire in StVincent? Because it just had to, was simply unavoidable, inevitable.
What did Guyana get out of the talks, as enshrined in this Declaration of Argyle, which would be heard from in the years ahead? Guyana bought some space, and it gifted itself some time. This country may have bought itself some peace, but at what price?
