ICJ ruling and reactions

On Friday the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favour of Guyana. It was not quite in the form which Guyana had requested, but it was a very positive decision nonetheless. Guyana’s request to the Court had been triggered by Venezuela’s declared intention of holding a referendum on Essequibo, one of the questions of which asks its citizens to approve the formal incorporation of that county into the Venezuelan state. That referendum is being held today, and consists of five questions in total, which in addition to the last one on the creation of a ‘Guyana Esequiba state’ also asks for endorsement of the rejection of the 1899 Award and support for the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Voters are additionally being requested to approve the non-recognition of the ICJ to resolve the controversy with Guyana as well as opposition to Guyana’s claim to dispose of a sea pending delimitation.

Guyana had requested provisional measures so Venezuela would not proceed with the Consultative Referendum in its present form, and in particular would not include the first, third or fifth questions. The ICJ was also asked that Venezuela should not include any question which encroached on the legal issues to be determined by the Court. The decision of the 14-member panel of judges did not deal with the referendum as such, but then Guyana’s request had no precedent in the history of the Court. However, in a different way it did address this country’s main concern.

It ruled: “Pending a final decision in the case, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area.” Furthermore, the Court also said that its orders had a binding effect and created “international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed”.

In other words, no matter what the outcome of the referendum Venezuela is holding today, there is now a legal constraint on its actions pending the result of the case concerning the validity of the 1899 Award currently before the Court. It cannot in any way be helpful to President Nicolás Maduro in his current situation to be in flagrant breach of an ICJ order by purporting to annexe Essequibo, whatever form that takes. Least of all, one might have thought, would it be in his interest to attempt any intrusion into our physical space. That said, in so far as irrationality is in full control in Miraflores, the Guyanese state must continue to be extremely watchful.

There was another addition to the ruling to the effect that neither Venezuela nor Guyana should take any measure which would aggravate conditions related to the 1899 Arbitral Award case currently before the court.

The official response of the Venezuelan government to the decision is no particular surprise. It

has reiterated once again that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ to settle the controversy, “especially given the existence of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.” (This is to ignore the fact that recourse to the ICJ has been had under the very Geneva Agreement.) It goes on to state that the Court rejected “as a whole” Guyana’s “unprecedented and unfounded request” relating to the Consultative Referendum. Nothing in international law, said the statement, allowed the Court to interfere in the internal affairs of Venezuela.

It continues on in like vein, saying the decision shows that Guyana is not a victim, but a de facto occupier of territory to which it has no title, and that it has repeatedly violated the Geneva Agreement and international law by granting concessions on land and sea, as well as facilitating the military deployment of the “main warlike power on the planet.” Near to the conclusion it says: “The truth of Venezuela and its inalienable sovereignty, constitutionality and self-determination have been victorious.” President Maduro expressed himself in rather more crass terms, being quoted as saying, “We scored a thrashing, we beat up the sell-out government of Guyana and Exxon Mobil.” It seems that not all media outlets in Venezuela see the ruling as a victory, Últimas Noticias reporting the President as decrying those who “have come out to lie and say that Guyana beat Venezuela.”

As for the Venezuelan National Assembly, it said, “All undelimited territories and aquatic spaces must be respected, especially concerning Venezuelan territorial waters,” emphasizing that it will not allow illegal foreign investments in territories that are part of Venezuela and its people. Whether this is just rhetoric, or whether it has a more unhealthy connotation is very difficult to say.

On the rational side of the divide, the Commonwealth Secretary General and the Government of Jamaica have welcomed the ruling, as has Caricom, which has said that Venezuela must comply with international law in all respects as well as with the Charter of the United Nations. It went on to say that that country must take no action which violates those laws. Every state, it said, had a duty to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others, and the holding of a referendum did not exempt a state from its duty to be in compliance with international law.

Given the statements from Jamaica and Caricom, it will be interesting to see what Prime Ministers Mottley and Gonsalves from Barbados and St Vincent, respectively, have to say, following their ambivalent approach to Venezuela’s aggressive posture towards Guyana.

Be that as it may, the Caricom statement really appears to have disconcerted Caracas. A statement from Foreign Minister Yván Gil categorically rejected the Caricom release on the ICJ ruling. In less than diplomatic language it ran: “The Caricom General Secretariat blatantly lies and intentionally omits the fact that the International Court of Justice unanimously

rejected Guyana’s reckless attempt to limit the political rights of Venezuelans and prevent the holding of the popular consultation convened by the National Assembly of Venezuela …” The continuation was of a similar tenor, with Caricom being reminded “of the unfortunate fate of erratically directed organizations, such as the Organization of American States, which under the influence of Luis Almagro was turned into a dysfunctional, ideologized structure, with destructive objectives and servile to imperial interests.”

The reason for this outburst may reflect the fact that several members of the Community belong to Alba (this includes St Vincent and the Grenadines), and that there are oil agreements with some, Barbados being a case in point. Some members of Caricom will have to wait and see whether Caracas intends to exert pressure on them.

For all the confident-sounding propaganda, there is a certain atmosphere of hysteria in the country to our west as illustrated by a small story which appeared yesterday in El Universal. It will nevertheless afford citizens on our side of the border some amusement. Two CEOs from non-governmental organisations Reunificados and Mi Mapa de Venezuela … filed a formal complaint with the UN representative in Venezuela with copies to Secretary General António Guterres and the Unicef representative to denounce the use of Guyanese children for conveying warmongering messages on behalf of the Guyana government.

The children, it was said, “express very harsh, very strong phrases, such as Venezuela ‘keep your hands off Essequibo’ … These are very strong phrases that should not be in the mouths of minors,” said the two complainants primly. They went on to say this was violating the convention on the rights of the child as well as the Geneva Agreement “which states that both parties must refrain from any action that could increase levels of tension or aggression.” Clearly the two CEOs have not been listening to their own President recently, let alone the Venezuelan Vice President as well as the Foreign Minister.

From Guyana’s point of view and that of international law, it does not matter how many millions turn out to vote in the Consultative Referendum today. In practical terms, following the ICJ ruling, there should be no consequences from that. Venezuela is prohibited from following up on measures to annexe Essequibo, for example, and for us that is the key issue. If despite that ruling it still does so, it will have become fully a rogue state in international terms with unpredictable consequences for Caracas.