Let justice take its course
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge

–Min Greenidge urges patience, caution on Guyana-Venezuela border controversy

FOREIGN Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge on Tuesday cautioned that while Guyana may have submitted its application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule in the age-old border controversy with Venezuela, citizens need to understand that the process is a long and drawn-out one.

“It is a long process; a difficult process… This is the first time that a referral to the court has gone from the secretary-general(SG) in this way,” he told the media during a briefing at his office here Tuesday.

The minister also made it clear that Guyana has to be very careful how it treats with the matter, as should there be any breach of protocol, it could be found in contempt of court, something he said Guyana cannot afford at this or any other juncture.

He said, too, that the ICJ may very well refrain from hearing the case put before it by Guyana, if it is found that it has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, or that there is an established mechanism by which the matter before it has been addressed.

Noting that there are no end of circumstances that could result in the ICJ refusing to hear the matter, Minister Greenidge said:
“We as a people are at a point that is a little tricky. Yes, the matter is before the court; we have to fight the matter before the court, and what comes out of the court will depend upon what we do, and what Venezuela does.”

The minister noted that while Venezuela’s position on the matter is unclear, the ICJ has already invited it to respond to Guyana’s application. And once the ICJ goes ahead with hearing the case, Guyana will be called to submit further arguments in support of its contention. Venezuela will be given an opportunity to respond.

Guyana two weeks ago submitted its application to the ICJ, requesting the court to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Arbitral Award regarding the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

WHAT GUYANA WANTS
Guyana in its application to the ICJ dated March 29, 2018, requested that the court, among other things, confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the award regarding the boundary between British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela of October 3, 1899.
Additionally, Guyana called on the court to declare that Guyana enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, that Venezuela should immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of Ankoko Island, and every other territory recognised as Guyana’s and to have Venezuela refrain from threatening or using force against any person, company licensed by Guyana to engage in economic or commercial activities in Guyanese territory.

Guyana also wants the ICJ to declare Venezuela responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.
“Pursuant to the Treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of Venezuela, signed February 2, 1897 at Washington, the 1899 Award was ‘a full, perfect, and final settlement’ of all questions relating to determining the boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and Venezuela,” Guyana’s application states.

Further, Guyana is contending that between November 1900 and June 1904, an Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission identified, demarcated and permanently fixed the boundary established by the 1899 Award; and that on January 10, 1905, the Commissioners signed a joint declaration and accompanying maps in accordance with the 1899 Award.

“At all times following the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, until the independence of Guyana in 1966, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepted that the Award and the Agreement finally settled all territorial claims and permanently fixed the land boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela,” Guyana states in its application.
The argument is being made that at all times since independence in May 1966, Guyana has accepted the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement as valid and legally binding on both parties, and that the boundary has always been and remains that which was fixed by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement.

“For its part, between 1899 and 1962, Venezuela consistently and repeatedly expressed its unconditional acceptance of the legal validity and binding force of the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, and respected the boundary with British Guiana that was fixed thereby,” Guyana’s application states.

CHANGE OF POSITION
However, Venezuela changed its position in 1962, as the United Kingdom was making final preparations for the independence of British Guiana.

“Sixty-three years after the 1899 Award was issued, Venezuela formally asserted for the first time that the Award was ‘arbitrary’ and therefore ‘null and void’,” Guyana stated, while noting that Venezuela threatened not to recognise the new state, or its boundaries unless the United Kingdom agreed to set aside the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement and cede to it (Venezuela) all of the territory west of the Essequibo River which was awarded to British Guiana in 1899.

Negotiations between the UK and Venezuela led to an agreement to resolve the controversy between the two countries. That agreement was signed at Geneva on February 17, 1966 and is referred to as the Geneva Agreement. It provides for recourse to a series of dispute-settlement mechanisms to finally resolve the controversy. Guyana acceded to the Geneva Agreement after gaining independence on May 26, 1966.

Guyana and Venezuela have for more than 50 years after signing the Geneva Agreement failed to resolve the controversy. “Throughout this period, until the present day, Guyana’s sovereignty, security, and development have been jeopardised by Venezuela’s refusal to recognise the long-settled boundary, and its claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s land territory, which is home to more than one-quarter of Guyana’s population.

Guyana maintains that Venezuela has never produced evidence to justify its “belated repudiation of the 1899 Award.” By virtue of the Geneva Agreement, which authorises the UN Secretary-General to decide which means of dispute settlement must be employed to end the controversy; Secretary-General Antonio Guterres determined that the Good Offices Process failed to achieve a peaceful settlement of the controversy. Between 1990 and January 2018, Guyana has been involved in several processes, all of which failed.
Nearly 52 years after the signing of the Geneva Agreement, the SG decided that the controversy shall be settled by the ICJ.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.