Delcy Rodriguez’s brooch revives Venezuela claim

Dear Editor,

Venezuela’s new President, Delcy Rodriguez, by virtue of the fact that Nicolas Maduro has been removed by the US government and is on trial in the US, has drawn considerable and concerning attention to herself by flaunting a brooch worn on her lapel of a map of Venezuela, including the Essequibo as a part of Venezuela, while in meetings with CARICOM Heads-of-State.

Rodriguez has also inflamed, with deliberate intention for public attention, the illegitimate claim of Venezuela to our Essequibo. President Irfaan Ali wasted no time in responding appropriately.

It is good, however, that Rodriguez has reminded us and, indeed, our allies, including the USA, that the Venezuelan regime (they are not an elected government) has every intention of pursuing this pernicious claim at a time when Guyana is about to make its oral presentations to the International Court of Justice who will, early next year, decide on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the boundary established by the 1905 Boundary Agreement.

We know that Venezuela, never once, for over 62 years, challenged the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award. We also know that it was the Venezuelan government who pressed the British government that the demarcation of the boundary between Venezuela and Guyana, in accordance with the Award, be settled on 10th January, 1905.

It is particularly ironical that Rodriguez chose the in-your-face display of a false map of Venezuela when, in fact, successive Venezuelan governments since in 1911 published maps consistent with the Award and the 1905 Agreement, again in 1928, in 1937, in 1939, in 1940, in 1947, in 1950, in 1955 and in 1956. In fact, the Venezuelan government published about 16 official Venezuelan maps between 1911 and 1962, demarcating the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, faithfully depicting the 1899 Arbitral Award and the 1905 Boundary Agreement, until its recent foolishness.

It is history that when Guiana’s Independence from the United Kingdom approached in the 1960s, the United Kingdom who had responsibility for British Guiana’s external relations, Venezuela contended to the United Kingdom that the 1899 Arbitral Award was a nullity, which the United Kingdom firmly rejected, but agreed to have any relevant documentary material in support of Venezuela’s claim examined by experts of the UK, BG and Venezuela. The UK representative who made the offer at a UN Special Political Committee, on 12th November, 1962, made it plain, however, and said: “In making this offer, I must make it very clear that it is in no sense an offer to engage in substantive talks about the revision of the frontier”. Venezuela accepted the offer. The three countries examined the documents and both the United Kingdom and British Guiana agreed with the experts that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the Venezuelan contention. Eventually, on the eve of Independence, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, with Guiana’s concurrence, concluded the Geneva Agreement, Article 1 of which reads:^[1]

“A mixed Commission shall be established with the task of seeking satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom which has arisen as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void”.

From its inception, successive Venezuelan governments have refused to recognize or honour the purpose of the Geneva Agreement, continuously insisting that the purpose of the Geneva Agreement was to agree on redefining the borders between Venezuela and Guyana on the assumption that the Arbitral Award of 1899 was a nullity.

As might have been expected, negotiations and discussions were fruitless and unproductive and agreement was not reached on one of the means of settlement listed in Article 3 of the United Nations Charter, which includes judicial settlement and, therefore, as the Agreement stipulated, the choice of the means of settlement was left to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and that this choice is binding on the two parties.

Eventually, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guteweres, decided, in accordance with Article IV (ii) of the Geneva Agreement, that the next means of settlement would be judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice and he so informed both governments of his decision.

The Venezuelan government, even now, with Delcy Rodriguez reporting directly to the US government, is determined to misrepresent and disregard the Geneva Agreement and, as we are on the eve of our 60th year of Independence, it seems appropriate to recall the words of our first Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham, spoken on 12th July, 1968, in the National Assembly and, as relevant today as when they were spoken, “ I cannot tell with any certainty where this ill-advised course of action of which the government of Venezuela has embarked will lead us. We must be prepared, however, for further and even more aggressive demonstrations of international lawlessness from the government of Venezuela. We will need all our courage and strength to withstand these efforts to break our will and despoil our land…in our stance for survival we shall call upon the conscience of all peace-loving people to speak out in our cause and we shall need all our unity as a people so that our voice may be heard in all corners of the world and in all the Councils of the World’s Institution of Peace.”

I conclude with the words from President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali in his letter to Prime Minister Dr. Terrence Michael Drew of St. Kitts & Nevis and Chairman of CARICOM. “The use of CARICOM engagements to project or promote a territorial claim against a member state risk being interpreted as acquiescence or tolerance. No action, whether deliberate or inadvertent, should create the impression that the community’s platforms may be used to advance claims now before the International Court of Justice. CARICOM’s principled support for Guyana must be reflected not only in declarations, but also in the context and conduct of official engagements.”

References

1. Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Judgment — jusmundi.com ↩