Guyana, U.S, and Chavez
by Sadio Garavini
EL UNIVERSAL, Tuesday December 27, 2011
In February 2007, President Chavez said, and since then has repeated on several occasions, that the reactivation of the Venezuelan claim on the Essequibo territory in 1962 by the government of Romulo Betancourt was the result of U.S.pressure supposedly interested in destabilizing the self-government (but not yet independent) of the then Prime Minister of British Guiana, Cheddi Jagan,who was an avowed Marxist-Leninist. The then Guyanese ambassador in Caracas,Odeen Ishmael, in an interview with El Nacional, referring to the presidential statement and the alleged brotherhood between the two "socialist and anti-imperialist governments", said President Chavez should "step forward to desist from the Venezuelan claim".
The claim that U.S. pressure on Venezuela to reactivate its territorial claim, although uncertain, could have a relative historical credibility. Recall that in 1961, during the "Cold War" the US attempted to block the Soviet Union’s influence there and in April of that year there was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The U.S.government developed the "no second Cuba policy", which became the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean during most of the early '60s. In this context, an independent Guyana with Jagan in power, had, in the eyes of Washington, all the characteristics of a potential "second Cuba."
For its part, the Betancourt government faced in the early years of the '60s, to an insurrection, which was inspired and financed by Cuba, as Che Guevara expressed in the thesis of the "export of revolution."
In 1962, Betancourt had to put down two bloody coup attempts, known as the "Carupanazo" and "Porteñazo" caused by the infiltration of "Castro" elements in the Armed Forces. The coincidence of interests between Betancourt and President Kennedy is evident. Betancourt needed American support to deal with both leftist insurgency, as well as the militarist right conspiracies,sponsored until his death in May 1961 by the Dominican dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. Also, economically, Betancourt required American support because of the serious crisis that was triggered by a drop in oil prices. For Kennedy, the Venezuelan representative democracy was the alternative model to Castro's Cuba in Latin America.
A model must be attractive to be successful, and so much of Kennedy's policy toward Latin America was going by the success of Venezuela's democratic experiment. As part of this "special relationship" between Kennedy and Betancourt, personally reaffirmed during Kennedy's visit to Caracas in late 1961, it would be inconceivable to the hypothesis of an agreement for Kennedy to use Betancourt’s Venezuelan claim to prevent the emergence of a "second Cuba" in the hemisphere. For Venezuela, it was not just to take advantage of a unique historical situation, to regain the territory lost to the unjust 1899 arbitration award but to avoid the establishment of a regime that could become a base of support for a potential guerrilla war in the east of the country.
Now, an event that has historical credibility is not necessarily true. Obviously, the Betancourt government sought and obtained the support of the Kennedy administration for the above circumstantial coincidence of their interests in this regard. Coincidence, of course, that was completed after Kennedy's death, with the coming to power in 1964 in Burnham, who in those years emphasized skillfully his anti-communism, support for U.S. and Great Britain to their aspirations. Indeed, with Burnham in power, the U.S. stopped supporting our claim.
But actually, the position is an absolute falsehood of Guyanese history. The revival of the claim was an absolutely autonomous process within the Venezuelan government, led by the imminence of the independence of Guyana. It is also obvious from all this that, as Guyana was in 1962 a British colony, to prevent a pro-Communist government arising in the future independent state, it was not necessary to "use" the Venezuelan claim, but just enough that the British government should postpone independence until Burnham and its allies win the elections.
More recently, the Guyanese government has renewed Ambassador Ishmael call on Venezuela to definitively abandon the claim, supported by the statements of President Chavez, who, incredibly,takes the most chauvinistic postition of the Guyanese government, to politicallyd elegitimize the claim itself, saying it was just an instrument of the Cold War.
President Chavez could be charged with treason.
by Sadio Garavini
EL UNIVERSAL, Tuesday December 27, 2011
In February 2007, President Chavez said, and since then has repeated on several occasions, that the reactivation of the Venezuelan claim on the Essequibo territory in 1962 by the government of Romulo Betancourt was the result of U.S.pressure supposedly interested in destabilizing the self-government (but not yet independent) of the then Prime Minister of British Guiana, Cheddi Jagan,who was an avowed Marxist-Leninist. The then Guyanese ambassador in Caracas,Odeen Ishmael, in an interview with El Nacional, referring to the presidential statement and the alleged brotherhood between the two "socialist and anti-imperialist governments", said President Chavez should "step forward to desist from the Venezuelan claim".
The claim that U.S. pressure on Venezuela to reactivate its territorial claim, although uncertain, could have a relative historical credibility. Recall that in 1961, during the "Cold War" the US attempted to block the Soviet Union’s influence there and in April of that year there was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The U.S.government developed the "no second Cuba policy", which became the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean during most of the early '60s. In this context, an independent Guyana with Jagan in power, had, in the eyes of Washington, all the characteristics of a potential "second Cuba."
For its part, the Betancourt government faced in the early years of the '60s, to an insurrection, which was inspired and financed by Cuba, as Che Guevara expressed in the thesis of the "export of revolution."
In 1962, Betancourt had to put down two bloody coup attempts, known as the "Carupanazo" and "Porteñazo" caused by the infiltration of "Castro" elements in the Armed Forces. The coincidence of interests between Betancourt and President Kennedy is evident. Betancourt needed American support to deal with both leftist insurgency, as well as the militarist right conspiracies,sponsored until his death in May 1961 by the Dominican dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. Also, economically, Betancourt required American support because of the serious crisis that was triggered by a drop in oil prices. For Kennedy, the Venezuelan representative democracy was the alternative model to Castro's Cuba in Latin America.
A model must be attractive to be successful, and so much of Kennedy's policy toward Latin America was going by the success of Venezuela's democratic experiment. As part of this "special relationship" between Kennedy and Betancourt, personally reaffirmed during Kennedy's visit to Caracas in late 1961, it would be inconceivable to the hypothesis of an agreement for Kennedy to use Betancourt’s Venezuelan claim to prevent the emergence of a "second Cuba" in the hemisphere. For Venezuela, it was not just to take advantage of a unique historical situation, to regain the territory lost to the unjust 1899 arbitration award but to avoid the establishment of a regime that could become a base of support for a potential guerrilla war in the east of the country.
Now, an event that has historical credibility is not necessarily true. Obviously, the Betancourt government sought and obtained the support of the Kennedy administration for the above circumstantial coincidence of their interests in this regard. Coincidence, of course, that was completed after Kennedy's death, with the coming to power in 1964 in Burnham, who in those years emphasized skillfully his anti-communism, support for U.S. and Great Britain to their aspirations. Indeed, with Burnham in power, the U.S. stopped supporting our claim.
But actually, the position is an absolute falsehood of Guyanese history. The revival of the claim was an absolutely autonomous process within the Venezuelan government, led by the imminence of the independence of Guyana. It is also obvious from all this that, as Guyana was in 1962 a British colony, to prevent a pro-Communist government arising in the future independent state, it was not necessary to "use" the Venezuelan claim, but just enough that the British government should postpone independence until Burnham and its allies win the elections.
More recently, the Guyanese government has renewed Ambassador Ishmael call on Venezuela to definitively abandon the claim, supported by the statements of President Chavez, who, incredibly,takes the most chauvinistic postition of the Guyanese government, to politicallyd elegitimize the claim itself, saying it was just an instrument of the Cold War.
President Chavez could be charged with treason.
