Ali objects to Maduro’s expectation that meeting will address Guyana-Venezuela dispute

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 December 2023, 16:00 by Denis Chabrol

President Irfaan Ali on Tuesday strenuously objected to Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro’s expectation that Thursday’s talks will “directly” address the territorial dispute between their two countries.  President Ali vowed that the controversy over the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award would would be settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“I, too, have a mandate from the National Assembly of Guyana which is unanimous in its resolve that the land boundary is not a matter for bilateral discussions and the settlement of the matter is properly in the International Court of Justice where it must remain until the Court gives its final ruling on the merits of the case which, Guyana has always said, and I repeat, will be fully respected by Guyana,” Dr Ali told Dr Gonsalves, whose country is also a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member state.

In addressing a number of “inaccuracies” in Mr Maduro’s letter to him on December 11, the Guyanese leader told the President Pro-Tempore of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (CELAC), St Vincent and the Grenadines Dr Ralph Gonsalves in a December 12 letter, that CARICOM leaders last Friday urged the “engagement”  and called for “a de-escalation of the conflict through an appropriate dialogue between the leaders of Venezuela and Guyana to ensure peaceful co-existence, the application and respect for international law and the avoidance of the use or threats of force.”

Dr Ali stressed that, “It is this framework for the meeting to which I have consented and to which I remain committed” and added that he was prepared to speak with the President Maduro “on any other aspect that may contribute to improving and strengthening amicable relations between our two countries.”

“I appreciate the efforts that you and my other CARICOM Colleagues are making to facilitate such a dialogue, as well as Brazil and other countries of CELAC, and wish to restate Guyana’s commitment to the peace and security of our region,” the Guyana President told the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Dr Ali said CARICOM leaders, including Dr Gonsalves, at last Friday’s meeting “clearly established” and “conveyed in the outcome statement” that there is “full support by CARICOM for Guyana of the resolution of its border controversy with Venezuela through the process of the International Court of Justice.”

A day earlier, President Maduro told the Vincentian leader that he welcomed the CELAC/CARICOM initiative to meet President Ali on Thursday at 10 AM in St Vincent with the “hope that it becomes at a starting point towards the return of direct negotiations”.

The Venezuelan leader said that that Venezuelans voted in December 3 referendum “for the defense of our legitimate rights over Guayana Esequiba” through a rejection of the boundary in the 1899 Arbitration Award, reaffirmed the route of negotiations under the 1966 Geneva Agreement “as the only way to reach a solution to the controversy” and not recognising te compulsory or mandatory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

“The imposition of the International Court of Justice, as an instance to seek a solution to the territorial dispute, is violative of the principle of mutual consent already agreed upon between the parties, which makes it one of the factors with the greatest impact and threatens deterioration. of the situation,” he said.

Article 4 of the Geneva Agreement ultimately empowers the United Nations Secretary General to unilaterally select a means of settling the territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. It reads:

(1) 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.

(2) If, within three months of receiving the final report, the Government 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.

“The Geneva Agreement of 1966 provides assurances of a final settlement by vesting in the Secretary-General of the United Nations the authority to choose the International Court of Justice as the means of settling the controversy in accordance with international law. That is what he did in 2018. The parties are bound by the Geneva Agreement to accept the ICJ as the means of settlement, and to accept the Judgement of the Court as the final settlement of the controversy,” the President said in that regard.

In CARICOM’s statement after last Friday’s meeting, the sub-regional grouping said it “firmly supports Guyana in pursuance of the resolution of its border controversy with Venezuela through the process of the of the International Court of Justice, ‘urges Venezuela to respect the conservatory measures determined by the ICJ in its recent ruling until a final resolution’ and reiterates CARICOM’s commitment to the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace and the maintenance of international law.’

In their urging of an engagement between Guyana and Venezuela, the CARICOM Heads of Government further called for “a de-escalation of the conflict through an appropriate dialogue between the leaders of Venezuela and Guyana to ensure peaceful co-existence, the application and respect for international law and the avoidance of the use or threats of force.”

On 17 February 1966, the Geneva Agreement was signed between the UK/British Guiana and Venezuela.  Guyana became a party upon attaining independence. The Agreement provided several mechanisms for Guyana and Venezuela to resolve Venezuela’s contention of nullity and invalidity of the Award by talks; failing which, the Agreement mandates the United Nations Secretary General to select a final means of settlement of the controversy. That is the process that was scrupulously followed, he said.

To recap that process: during the entire period of the existence of the Geneva Agreement, there have been several tools utilized. These include four years (1966 -1970) of meetings through a Mixed Commission involving bilateral talks between Guyana and Venezuela, a 12- year moratorium followed by 28 years (1989 – 2017) of the Good Offices Process under the aegis of the United Nations Secretary General. That Process facilitated dialogue between the two sides on a resolution of the controversy in the presence of the Secretary General’s personal representative.

It should be noted that Venezuela has never offered any credible support or evidence for its contention of nullity and invalidity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which settled the boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela. Nor has it offered evidence to contradict the validity of the 1905 Agreement, signed by both parties, fixing the boundary along the line established in the 1899 Arbitral Award. To the contrary, between 1899 and 1962 Venezuela accepted and recognised that boundary as the international boundary between the two States, as reflected in all official Venezuela maps published during this 60+ year period. Indeed, it applauded the award, claiming as a great victory the attribution of the mouth of the Orinoco River – which was understood by both parties as the most important territory in dispute – to Venezuela.

President Ali dismissed President Maduro’s claims that Guyana’s oil concessions  are “in a maritime area yet to be delimited” by pointing out that, contrary to that misleading assertion, all of the oil blocks are located well within Guyanese waters under international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees coastal States the exclusive rights to the resources in the sea and seabed within 200 nautical miles of their coasts. The oil blocks are all located adjacent to Guyana’s coast and within 200 nautical miles of it.

He said that in 2015, a significant oil discovery was made by Esso Exploration & Production Guyana Limited in the Stabroek Block approximately 120 miles offshore of Guyana. Production has since commenced and been carried on without interference from Venezuela. The 14 oil blocks included in the 2022 Licensing Bid Round are farther east of the boundary with Venezuela – and farther from the Venezuelan coast – than the Stabroek Block, he added.

As for the “further inaccurate allegation” that there is “meddling of the United States Southern Command, which has begun operations in the disputed territory”, Dr Ali said the Government of Guyana maintains its sovereign right to engage in any form of cooperation with its bilateral partners and does not support intervention in the internal affairs of any other State. The Guyanese leader denied that  that a military operation aimed at Venezuela exists in any part of Guyanese territory and described it as false, misleading and provocative.