Dear Editor,
Cognizant of the complexities, and more so, the sensitivities of the border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela in the context of the recent dialogue between the two Heads of State, brokered by CELAC and CARICOM, this author opted to deliberately stay away from any public commentary, discussion, and analysis on this subject.
However, the undersigned is inclined to respond to a letter by Mr. Rawle Lucas which was published in the Kaieteur News edition of December 18, 2023, with the caption, “President Ali turns his back on the judicial process and disarms Guyana while doing so”.
In particular, this author strongly disagrees with the following contentions proffered by Mr. Lucas, that:
i) “…The President restored Guyana’s territorial integrity to perpetual jeopardy.
ii) “…this is an affront to the Granger administration, a betrayal of unity on the border controversy and a serious setback for the future of Guyanese, particularly since Maduro gave up nothing”.
iii) … “from the language in in the Joint Declaration, particularly in paragraphs 2 and 4, President Ali revealed his naivety, poor negotiating skills and rendered the value of any judicial decision of the ICJ impotent. It is not clear what the urgency was to agree to such outcomes of the summit without the benefit of inputs from the Opposition and the Guyanese people. There was no harm in asking for a few hours to ensure that he protected the interests of the Guyanese people by properly preserving his position on the ICJ”.
iv) … “together the words “any controversies,” along with the rest of the language in the paragraph, opened the opportunity to have the border controversy returned to bilateral talks”.
v) …” that “the negotiating skill of President Maduro emerged again in paragraph 4, the contents of which he carefully distanced from paragraph 2, and subtly used to get President Ali, by his own doing, to render any ICJ decision against Venezuela impotent. President Maduro readily acknowledged that the matter was before the ICJ as Guyana wanted him to do. That did not cause President Maduro as much harm as Ali’s acceptance that Venezuela has the right to ignore the decision of the ICJ”.
With respect to Mr. Lucas contention at (i) above, it is Venezuela that has stirred up an unjustified, baseless claim over Guyana’s territory, a claim that Venezuela has failed to evidently corroborate for more than half of a century, and it is Venezuela that has said repeatedly that they do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
In this author’s view, the case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) remains unjeopardized given that the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations (U.N), which is the body that referred the matter to the ICJ, and that the dialogue between the two Heads of State was also observed by representatives from the U.N. As such, contrary to the flawed characterization by Lucas, the continuous non-recognition of the ICJ by Venezuela even after the ICJ will have ruled on the substantive matter. Thus, would render Venezuela’s unjustified claims over Guyana’s territory a perpetual unresolved issue, with geopolitical ramifications―and―NOT a perpetual jeopardization of Guyana’s territorial integrity.
Mr. Lucas’s assertion outlined at (ii) and (iii) above sought to sow some degree of division between the Government and the Opposition in respect of the border controversy. One would recall that the Opposition Leader (OL) admitted that he was invited to be part of the delegation, to which he (OL) declined.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to assert that the President did not consult with the Opposition on the joint declaration. Moreover, in the context of the “dialogue” and Venezuela’s claims over two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, Maduro is not required to give up anything other than the withdrawal of threats and actions thereof, that Maduro’s Government has taken to give effect more or less to the annexation of Guyana’s territory.
His assertion at (iv) above is another dangerous mischaracterization on the part of Mr. Lucas. For the readers benefit, paragraphs (2) and (4) pursuant to the “Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana and Venezuela (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Declaration), state the following:
Paragraph 2: “Agreed that any controversies between the two States will be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement dated February 17, 1966”.
Paragraph 4: “Noted Guyana’s assertion that it is committed to the process and procedures of the International Court of Justice for the resolution of the border controversy. Noted Venezuela’s assertion of its lack of consent and lack of recognition of the International Court of Justice and its jurisdiction in the border controversy”.
Contrary to Mr. Lucas’s argument, paragraph (2) is consistent with Guyana’s position―that is, the matter shall be settled in accordance with International Law, inter alia, the ICJ. In acknowledging Mr. Lucas’s interpretation that paragraph two opens up the matter to revert, once again, to a bilateral settlement, this view of his, is likely informed by the fact that reference was made to the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Though it has been established that Venezuela has grossly misrepresented the 1966 Geneva Agreement, that Agreement provides for the settlement of the controversy at the ICJ. To this end, Article IV (1) of the 1966 Agreement states that:
“If, within a period of four years from the date of this Agreement, the Mixed Commission should not have arrived at a full agreement for the solution of the controversy it shall, in its final report, refer to the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela any outstanding questions. Those Governments shall without delay choose one of the means of peaceful settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Article IV (2) goes on to state that… “If, within three months of receiving the final report, the Govern ment of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela should not have reached agreement regarding the choice of one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. If the means so chosen do not lead to a solution of the controversy, the said organ or, as the case may be, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall choose another of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and so on until the controversy has been resolved or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted”.
With this in mind, it was in accordance with the 1966 Geneva Agreement that the controversy was referred to the United Nations “Good Offices” process, which yielded no result after nearly three decades, then finally it was in accordance with the UN Charter that the Secretary General recommended that the controversy be settled, viz-á-viz, the ICJ.
In relation to paragraph (4) of the “Joint Declaration”, President Maduro did not negotiate for anything, neither did President Ali accepted Maduro’s non-acceptance of the ICJ process, as interpreted by Mr. Lucas. Paragraph (4) simply reflected Maduro’s position, which is that Venezuela does not recognize the ICJ. The obvious reason for this is premised on the view that Venezuela has no evidence to substantiate their claims over Guyana’s territory, because they have failed to produce any for the past 60+ years.
In reference to the use of the word “dispute” in the Joint Declaration, while Guyana has been careful not to describe the issue as a dispute, because as far as Guyana is concerned, the border has been settled since 1899…Guyana has always referred to same as a controversy.
Moreover, a number of local attorneys even argued that it should not be referred to as a controversy either because it is a baseless claim by Venezuela; Guyana has no issues with the border.
Notwithstanding, it was observed that the ICJ used the word “dispute” in its rulings to describe the matter, hence, the transposition of the word “dispute”, following the ICJ’s use of same by the interlocutors, namely CELAC and CARICOM… that brokered the dialogue, should be viewed only in that premise.
Finally, this author would like to point out that the broad objectives of the dialogue was achieved, that is, to de-escalate tensions driven largely by Venezuela. This is important to understand within this framework; the importance of the dialogue between the two Heads of State.
As a lesson for Guyana, there is a widely held, strong view by international academics and geopolitical experts that one of the main reasons the war between Russia and Ukraine started, is because the parties involved (including the proxies involved) refused to hold dialogue prior.
In the case of Guyana, government did extremely well in this regard, backed by its diligent work at the diplomatic level, which was visibly demonstrated in the wide range of strong international support from across the region and the globe.
Yours respectfully,
Joel Bhagwandin
