OPINION: Ali-Maduro sponsored Meeting: A Diplomatic Faux Pas or an Intention to Deceive: President Ali can only speak to President Maduro about walking back all his actions to Annex Essequibo

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 December 2023, 9:09 by Denis Chabrol

By Retiired Rear Admiral, Gary Best; PHd (International Relations)

Dr Gary Best

I argue in this piece that the only matter that President Ali can possibly discuss, if he attends this hurried meeting, is for President Maduro to walk back all his decisions to annex Essequibo, particularly since the matter is before the ICJ forfinal determination and, consequently, the multiple prior methods for resolving the
controversy within the Geneva Agreement have since expired.

It is important to remind citizens that Venezuela continues to occupy (sixty years and counting) Guyana’s half of the Ankoko island, which is a part of the border that was settled by the 1899 Arbitral Award. That was, and is, clear aggression by Venezuela! And not by Guyana. Not to mention its clear repugnance to
international treaty obligation and recognition. Venezuela’s refusal to accept the 1899 Arbitral Award, many decades after initially accepting, based on an unsigned posthumous letter that alleged collusion, led to the matter being described as a “border controversy” within the Geneva Agreement (GA) of February 1966 and
not a border dispute. It was for Venezuela to provide evidence of that allegation. It
never did.

The GA was signed by representatives of Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and British Guiana. Guyana subsequently became a party to this agreement after it became independent in May 1966. Critical to our understanding is the fact that nowhere in the GA is there any mention of ‘Essequibo’ and any mention of a
‘border dispute’. Consequently, it is Venezuela which has continuously mispresent to the world that the GA was meant solve a border dispute it has with Guyana via bilateral discussions. That misrepresentation continues.

This backdrop is important when we look at the intended meeting between President Ali and President Maduro and the three different letters written by each of them that complicate this matter. Having regard to the terms of the GA,
President Maduro’s letter which speaks about a meeting “in order to directly address the territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana” is therefore repugnant to the GA. There is no territorial dispute.

Prime Minister (PM) Gonsalves’ letter which speaks to “matters consequential to the border controversy…” sets a dangerous pathway in that they can be no matters consequential to the ‘border controversy’ when that controversy is still before the  International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a final settlement. His letter is therefore repugnant to the GA. The other portion of PM Gonsalves’ letter which speaks to  “the urgent need to [de-escalate] the conflict” is also repugnant to the GA and to Guyana generally, since the evidence clearly shows that it was, and still is, Venezuela that threatens the sovereignty of Guyana. Consequently, there is no room for “… an appropriate dialogue” as put by PM Gonzales until President Maduro walks back all his actions that threaten the annexation of Essequibo.

Therefore, it is Venezuela that is required to de-escalate, not Guyana! President Ali’s letter to PM Gonzales is clear and in keeping with the original  intention of the GA which “… supports Guyana in pursuance of the resolution of  its border controversy with Venezuela through the process of the ICJ.”

Now that this matter is before the ICJ, it is sub judice. Guyana must not do anything to jeopardize its case before that court. Equally important, the GA is now expired to the extent of all the previous steps (mixed commission, bi-lateral discussions, discussions, Good Officer Process) that led to the matter being sent to the ICJ for final determination are no longer applicable.

Consequently, this Ali- Maduro meeting falls outside the GA, and it therefore cannot discuss the matter contained in the GA- meaning the border controversy.

Further, the fact that Venezuela, an original member of the ICJ, is on record as saying it does not recognize the jurisdiction of that court and Maduro’s recent letter insisting on discussing ‘a border dispute’ makes it impractical for any meeting between these two Heads of State. With all this common knowledge available, it is at best a regional diplomatic faux pas or an intention to deceive. Additionally, any meeting between Ali and Maduro, who has already defied the ICJ’s provisional orders, equates to an acceptance by President Ali of Venezuela’s position of ‘non recognition of the ICJ’. President Ali must not fall into this trap.

So, where does this leave President Ali and his representation of the nation state of Guyana at this meeting? I submit that the only matter that remains at large is Venezuela’s threat to annex Essequibo, and its consequent destabilizing effect on Guyana, Latin America, and the Caribbean. That is what President Ali should discuss, if he still attends the meeting – meaning a discussion on President Maduro walking back all his actions that threaten the annexation of Essequibo in order for this region to remain a ‘zone of peace’. And that excludes any discussion on joint development of the Essequibo region as part of any “matters consequential to the border controversy”, as put by PM Gonsalves.