By Article IV(1) of the Geneva Agreement of 1966, the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela committed to choosing one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for by article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN), if the Mixed Commission did not arrive at a full agreement for the settlement of the controversy within four years. Judicial settlement was one of those means under article 33. But the part of the article providing for the parties to choose the means of settlement is qualified by Article V. It provides that they are to refer the decision of the means of settlement to an “appropriate international organ on which they both agree,” but failing agreement “to the Secretary General of the United Nations.”
After the conclusion of the mandate of the Mixed Commission, the Governments of Guyana, Venezuela and the United Kingdom entered into an agreement known as the Port of Spain Protocol in June, 1970, which suspended the operation of Article IV of the Geneva Agreement for twelve years. This meant effectively that the formal search under Article IV for a resolution of the controversy was suspended for the period. Guyana and Venezuela undertook to “explore all possibilities of better understanding between them.”
Wracked by dissention and uncertainty, compounded by the dismissal of Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, known by the nickname of Crocodile which he embraces, the army on Wednesday occupied strategic points in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, and deposed President Robert Mugabe, aged 93 and in power for 37 years. The army, led by General Constantino Chiwenga, said that it was not a coup. It appears as if efforts are being made to attain a peaceful and lawful transition of power from Mugabe to a government led by Mnangagwa.
The unfolding events, as they became known, show that Mnangagwa was true to his nickname. In collusion with the army, he was patiently awaiting an opportune moment to move against Mugabe who appeared determined to promote his wife, Grace Mugabe, a deeply unpopular ZANU-PF official, who represents the post-liberation ZANU-PF group, G40, to succeed him. This would have resulted in the sidelining of the army and the veterans. There was open, verbal, warfare, between these two distinct sections of the Zimbabwean ruling class. The people of Zimbabwe, downtrodden by poverty, have been unmoved by what is clearly a palace dispute.
The drive for ethnic dominance is an unavoidable consequence of our social history. It manifests itself in numerous ways and appears in discourses relating to social and economic policy. More importantly and fundamentally, it appears in political competition. Ideas of ethnic dominance have always shaped our society, and politics could not have escaped it even if it had tried. Our main political parties understand this reality but have each constructed an historical narrative that tells an alternative story. The narratives have subsisted together with and have had a parallel trajectory with the drive for ethnic dominance.
Even the youthful leaders who formed the early political movement, the Political Affairs Committee of 1947 and the Peoples Progressive Party in 1950, did so with the understanding that ethnic unity was a vital pre-requisite. The split of the PPP in 1955, although overtly between ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists,’ were led by an African Guyanese, Burnham, the ‘moderate’ and the walkout was against the Indian Guyanese, Cheddi Jagan, the ‘extremist,’ resulting from a demand made by Burnham for ‘leader or nothing.’ But within a short time the split inevitably developed into ethnic dimensions. The ethnic violence of the 1960s and two decades of authoritarian rule have together ensured its rigidity and sharpened its significance as a factor in Guyana’s politics unlike, say, Trinidad and Tobago, and have brought home the need to create political and constitutional structures that would undermine its political potency.
President Obama is reported to have told President-elect Trump that his biggest foreign policy issue was likely to be North Korea. Testing a missile after Trump was sworn in, this prediction quickly became reality. The US believes that North Korea is rapidly developing the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the West Coast of the US. It already has several nuclear bombs. In US terms, such a development by an adversary will threaten not only its own national security but also that of its allies, Japan and South Korea. Its conventional army already poses an immediate threat to Seoul, the capital of South Korea and its industrial areas.
The Koreans from both North and South are a proud and dignified people who, like so many others, have been victims of imperialism. Korea was colonized and subjected to brutal rule, not for the first time in its history, by Japan from 1905 after the Russo-Japanese War. After the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany in Europe, it joined the Pacific War against Japan in early August 1945, as agreed with the Allies. By late August, the Soviet Union had already driven out the Japanese from the North and had reached Pyongyang. The Allies quickly sought agreement with the Soviet Union on the stationing of their forces, each confined to positions north and south of the 38th parallel. Separate governments were eventually established in 1948, after several years of negotiations failed to agree on the terms of unification.
The ruling elite in the United States, supported by those of Europe, are becoming apoplectic at the prospect of a rapprochement between the US and Russia, which could lead to the lifting of sanctions against Russia. Not since President George W. Bush looked into the eyes of President Putin and saw his soul, has the prospect emerged of better relations.
The US press, reflecting the ruling elite, has demonized President Putin as an evil genius intent on restoring the power of the old USSR and the greatness of old Russia at the expense of the US and its allies. The elite is convinced that President Putin is so clever that in any encounter between Trump and Putin, the latter will inevitably prevail. This has reached almost hysteria stage since the CIA concluded that Russia intervened in the US elections by hacking into computers of the Democratic Party and officials and leaking it to Wikileaks. No other narrative, not even Russia’s accusation of Hillary Clinton’s intervention in Russia’s presidential elections against President Putin, is permitted to see the light of day.