Guyana faces serious questions about how effectively asserted is its territorial sovereignty in the public arena. The defence, led by the Government of Guyana, has been not as visible as the public would like. If one would care to take a cursory look, Venezuela and Suriname appear relentless in advancing their territorial claims through robust media campaigns.
The lack of proactive communication from the government, especially regarding escalating tensions with Venezuela and Suriname, has been striking. Key incidents, such as the recent turning away of a Venezuelan boat from Supenaam and subsequently Parika, have not been sufficiently addressed by the government. Instead, citizens have had to rely on unofficial, and sometimes foreign, sources of information for critical updates. The government, in this case, should be the first to provide clear and transparent updates to the public, ensuring that misinformation does not fill the void.
The courtroom of public opinion is shaped by the media, and if Guyana’s channels are not playing an active role in protecting its sovereignty through consistent and transparent coverage, the other side has the upper hand. The public relies on the media to understand the state’s position on territorial issues, and when this information is not delivered in an accessible, timely manner, external narratives gain momentum. The local media must be empowered to stand as the first line of defence for Guyana’s territorial claims, providing a counter-narrative to the claims advanced by Venezuela and Suriname.
The government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has acknowledged the formation of a public relations committee designed to increase the visibility of Guyana’s positions, yet there has been little follow-up or public communication regarding this initiative. The court of public opinion is entitled to know the actions and outcomes of such a committee. If this committee is indeed working to bolster Guyana’s position, it should be actively presenting updates and strategic plans to the public. Without these efforts being made clear, Venezuela and Suriname will continue to dominate the media narrative.
Education also plays a critical role. Guyana’s schools should be fostering a sense of national pride by engaging students in discussions. The national map should not just be displayed in classrooms—it should be an educational tool that sparks conversations about Guyana’s borders, history and sovereignty. Students must understand the significance of Guyana’s boundaries not only in terms of political history but also as an intrinsic part of the nation’s identity.
The lack of a well-coordinated educational strategy regarding territorial sovereignty leaves the public unprepared to engage in the trial of public opinion. In the same way that a defence lawyer cannot effectively argue a case without a deep understanding of the law, Guyanese citizens cannot fully defend their country’s territorial integrity without being well-informed. Without this knowledge, the public’s role in the defence of national sovereignty remains passive at best, and the prosecution’s claims can easily be accepted as valid. By integrating discussions about territorial integrity into the education system, the government can create a more informed and vocal defence.
Meanwhile, Venezuela and Suriname continue to advance their territorial claims through their own media campaigns. Venezuela has been particularly vocal, emphasizing the strategic importance of the Essequibo region and portraying the issue as one of national pride and security. Suriname, too, has been active in stoking tensions over its claim to the New River Triangle. Their media efforts are shaping the narrative, creating a public that believes their territorial ambitions are justified.
The government’s limited presence in the media on territorial issues makes it easier for neighbouring countries to push forward their claims. Guyana cannot afford to remain passive, especially as these neighbouring nations continue to advance their agendas both domestically and internationally.
A striking example of their success came during the recent International Business Conference when Suriname presented a map that included the New River Triangle as part of its territory, something it has frequently done. This misrepresentation went largely unchallenged, highlighting a missed opportunity for Guyana to defend its borders in the public sphere. The failure to mount a robust media response, until Stabroek News broke the story, of this misstep undermines the credibility of the government. If Guyana is to successfully defend its territorial integrity, it must do so not only in international diplomatic forums but also in the court of public opinion.
The Guyana case needs to be bolstered by a united effort, not just from the government but from the media, educational institutions, and civil society. National pride and a clear understanding of territorial sovereignty must be central to the strategy. The government should ensure that national symbols—such as the flag, anthem, and pledge—are integrated into the public consciousness, becoming part of the everyday dialogue that shapes the nation’s identity. This is the foundation upon which a strong defence of Guyana’s territorial integrity can be built.
Stabroek News
