‘The Guyana —
Venezuela
border issue

By CHEDD! JAGAN
Venezuela has once again raised its spurious claim to
nearly three-fifths of the territory of Guyana, her
English-speaking neighbor on the South American main-
land.
Considered settled in 1899 under the Paris Arbitration
Award, the border issue has been resurrected by Ven-

ezuela from time to time to serve the interests of im- -

perialism and other reactionary forces. It was first used
in 1962 as part of the imperialist and CIA campaign to
destabilize the People’s Progressive Party government.

Venezuela is opposing the implementation of a
$2,000-million hydro-electric-aluminum smelter project
in the 50,000 sq. miles Essequibo county, the whole of
which she claims. She is also shopping in the United
States for sophisticated F-16 fighters. (Since this was
written, president Reagan has asked Congress to ap-
prove the sale of 24 advanced F-16s to Venezuela. Ven-
ezuela, in turn backed the military regime in El Sal-
vador).

The Burnham government, for its part, has whipped
_up an almost hysterical campaign on the border issue.
Epithets such as fascists, terrorists, bandits, have been
hurled at Venezuela.

For the Guyana government, the Venezuelan threat
(whether by design or accident) was a blessing. It was
capitalized on to divert attention from pressures im-
posed by the International Monetary Fund; improve its
image Overseas; whip up support inside Guyana; deny
workers’ demands for wage increases; use Venezuela as
a scapegoat for its failure to implement the hydro-elec-
tric-smelter project; and beef up the military and para-
military apparatus to prop it up in office.

The Venezuelan threat has also provided the regime
with an opportunity to refurbish its image overseas,
which had become tarnished since 1977 as a result of the
use of the military against sugar, municipal and bauxite
workers; the Jonestown massacre-suicide, the Walter
Rodney. assassination, the denial of newsprint to the
Opposition press, and the rigging of the 1978 Referendum
and the 1980 general and regional elections. Now, the
Burnham regime has mounted an international cam-
paign, claiming that rich, powerful Venezuela is POLEE
ing on small, struggling Guyana.

Looked at from Washington, there has been serious
concern about dynamic developments and a decisive
shift in the world balance of forces against imperialism in
the post-Vietnam 1975-80 period. As a result, the ruling
circles in Washington have become more hawkish.
Under the Reagan administration, the emphasis has
shifted towards a policy of ‘‘confrontation’’ and speak-
ing from what it conceives to be ‘‘a position of strength’.

Emphasis has shifted from poverty as the root cause of
political instability in the region to the ‘‘Soviet menace’”’

d ‘Cuban terrorism’’. Cuba is to be isolated, if not
attacked. No doubt under pressures, Venezuela has sus-
pended, while Colombia and Costa Rica have severed,
diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Although the Burnham regime is taking since 1977
vacillating positions as in the 1971-73 period; the Reagan
administration would prefer Guyana to move to an out-
right pro-imperialist and pro-capitalist position which
was held during 1964-70. In this respect, U.S. imperial-
ism could be behind the Venezuelan threats against
Guyana to force the Bumham regime to move further to
the right, to open up developmental projects to foreign
capital and the transnational corporations, and to de-
nationalize certain key industries.

These imperialist positions are in accord with the
geo-political and strategic objectives of the Venezuelan
bourgeoisie. For many years, they have been clamoring
for joint development of the Essequibo region. To con-
cede this could be tantamount to an economic takeover.

The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has already
warned the government against any sellout deals and
concessions. It is strange that the Guyana government,
in the face of its claim of Venezuelan agoression, has
failed to take the issue to the UN Security Council.
Neither has it sought the cooperation and support of the
Opposition for mobilization of the people. The Opposi-
tion’s position is clear: The border claim must not be
allowed to be used as a political football against the vital
interests of the Guyanese and Venezuelan peoples. It
~ must not be left dangling over Guyana’s territorial integ-
rity, national independence and sovereignty.

Dr. Cheddi Jagan is leader of the Opposition People's
Progressive Party in Guyana’s parliament. He was
elected Prime Minister of Guyana in 1953, 1957 and

WORLD

The U.S. numbers game |

and real missile parity |

to the Kremlin.’

British have their nuclear forces.”’

succeed.
*

“The USSR is committed to
find a workable solution to the
medium-range nuclear weapons’
problem in Europe,”’ writes the
Soviet press agency APN. “‘It has
said that if NATO rescinds its
plan to deploy new U.S. missiles,
the USSR will reduce the sum
total of its rockets.

Unfortunately, president
Reagan’s speech did not contain a
positive response to the Soviet in-
itiative. One should not forget
that the U.S. is as much a part of
NATO as the USSR is of the
Warsaw Pact. For them to insist
that U.S. forward-based systems
are autonomous and not in-
tegrated into NATO contingency
plans is misleading to say the
least.”’

**Moscow does not seek privil-
eges,’’ writes foreign affairs ex-
pert Spartak Beglov. ‘‘It insists
on only one thing — that the U.S.
and NATO as a whole measure
Soviet security with- the same
yardstick they measure their own
security.”

““The USSR cannot agree that
the Geneva talks will not include
U.S. forward-based weapons,”’
commented Col-General, Nikolai
Chervov, a member of the USSR
defence ministry. ‘‘We can’t
agree that the weapons of
NATO’s allies will not be include
in any parity — or that the discus-
sion would be limited to reduction

_ of Soviet missiles ‘‘in exchange”’
for U.S. missiles designed to be
stationed in Europe.”’

their forward-based systems give

When President Reagan made his so-called ‘“‘zero option’”’ spec :
last week, one observer said the Americans were ‘‘asking for the ke

Briefly put, Reagan offered the USSR something White House |
Strategists knew in advance Moscow couldn’t accept. He said the U. S. ry
would forego placing the new Pershing and Cruise systems in Europe
the USSR would dismantle its existing systems.

Conveniently forgotten in Reagan’s “‘offer’ were present NATO, |
U.S. and French systems. He left out NATO’s bombers with nuclear
warheads, submarines with missiles cruising the North Atlantic as wel
as forgetting British and French missiles aimed at the USSR. A

“It’s not as if we’re starting from zero,’’ remarked Martin Hillen:
brand, former U.S. ambassador to West Germany, ‘‘the U.S. ha:
6,000 tactical nuclear weapons in western Europe and the French an

The USSR’s reply was to insist that mutual parity of security must be. ,
observed and that real negotiations, to begin in Geneva, must take into. 4
account the entire NATO-U.S.-British-French nuclear arsenal where
looking at comparative Soviet reductions.

Here are some initial comments by the Soviet side on Reagant
speech and on the ground rules required to make the Geneva talks

* i

‘Put yourselves in our shoes,” |
he said. ‘‘How can we ignore the |
almost 1,000 medium-range wal- |
heads of the U.S., Britain and Fr
ance which can hit Soviet target
as far east as the Ural mountains? —

“When American politicians
and military figures argue that

them no advantage over the
USSR, and for this reason there’ Si
no need to include them into cal- |
culations at Geneva, they hide the
fact that U.S. forward-based
potential can reach Soviet term-
tory, whereas Soviet medium-
range potential cannot reach U.S-
territory. This is the principal ad- |

vantage. a

* * *

Reagan made his ‘‘zero Op-
tion’’ speech Nov. 18 which w
timed to hit prime time Europea!
television, and the U.S. even paid
for the satellite transmission
make certain it did. He wanted
defuse the growing peace mov:
ment.

But not lost on observers w
the fact that the very next day t
U.S. House of Representatives
voted to back Reagan’s B-! |
bomber and MX missile program, |
key elements in his $180-billioD |
plan to introduce qualitatively |
new and upgraded weapons int0
U.S. strategic nuclear forces.

As one member put the $400- |

million per plan B-1: ‘It’s a very ‘
expensive eapauing chip.”’

-_ Reagan out to scuttle arms talks

U. S. President Ronald Reagan’s cynical speech. of of the unwary. It is sheer trickery to advance such a

November 18 had two aims. First and foremost it is a
brazen attempt to scuttle any meaningful negotiations
with the USSR on strategic nuclear arms limitation
based on equality and equality of sec unity for both the
USSR and the USA.

The second aim is a vain atbempt to delude the
peoples of the world and mainly of western Europe
who have been staging mass demonstrations against
the deployment of U.S, neutron warheads, and the
Pershing Two and Cruise nuclear missiles in coun-
tries of western Europe.

The U.S. president has demagogically twisted facts
and reamed off fraudulent figures to cover up the real
] aim of U.S. imperialism and military brass, to estab-
lish U.S. supremacy in arms and destroy the rough
parity presently existing nuclear arms weaponry.

return to the SALT principle, and. genuine negotia-—
be- tions based on equality and equality of security. It is_
tween the USSR and the USA. This is glaringly il- =
- lustrated by his deceitful call to replace SALT witha . .
so-called program of. ‘‘strategic arms reduction’. - .
‘| -| Such a proposal is intended only for the consumption: y

proposition, while at the same time rejecting the | |
limitation agreement of SALT 2. 1

Press and media reports of the Reagan speech were
also misleading, including a false claim that Western
leaders acclaimed Reagan’s proposition. The only
ones mentioned by name however, were Chancellor
Schmidt of West Germany, Prime Minister Thatcher |
of Britain and NATO sok aed ie Luns. All | |
three being well-known hawks.

~ Such media treatment of what amounts to acall by —
the U.S. president for unilateral disarmament on the
part of the USSR is to practice deceit, with the victim
being the general public. 5

What Canada and the world urgently need is a

she: erly realistic: alternative to nuclear war.

Central Executive Committee

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DEC. 4, 1981—Page®

Sanne