Venezuelan partial agreements

There are some things which take place in the international arena that are so bizarre they almost leave one gasping. And so it was four days ago in Mexico City when Jorge Rodriguez Gomez and Gerardo Blyde, respective heads of the Nicolás Maduro government and the Unity Platform of Venezuela – i.e. the combined opposition – signed what has been described as partial agreements. This was done under the benign gaze of the Mexican Foreign Minister, the Norwegian Mediator and the representatives of other parties to the talks, namely, the Netherlands, Bolivia, Russia and Turkey.

The achievement of any kind of agreement between the government and opposition in Venezuela would normally be a reason for approbation, but there was a very large fly embedded in this particular ointment. One of those accords was for the defence of the sovereignty of Venezuela over Essequibo. Exactly what our neighbour’s meretricious claim to three-fifths of our land space had to do with attempts to find solutions to its ongoing internal political crisis is mystifying, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wasted no time in responding. “While the Government of Guyana welcomes domestic accord within Venezuela,” it said, “an agreement defying international law and process is not a basis for mediating harmony.” It went on to state, “Guyana cannot be used as an altar of sacrifice for settlement of Venezuela’s internal political differences.”

The foreign parties to the agreement as well as the Mediator, as far as is known, raised no concerns about the inclusion of a matter which as Takuba Lodge pointed out is currently before the International Court of Justice. Perhaps their attitude was that any agreement between the two sides was to be welcomed, even if the topic was irrelevant to the case at hand. Mr Geoff Ramsey, Director for Venezuela at the Washington Office on Latin America probably had it right when he said that the issue of Essequibo offered “low hanging fruit” to establish a “minimum consensus” in the talks.

It has to be remembered too that this is not the first occasion on which the opposition has joined with the Venezuelan government in raising the matter as a means of arriving at a mutual understanding during discussions about their domestic disputes. This happened some years ago at abortive talks mediated by the Vatican. Nevertheless, Argus, which provides commodity and energy price benchmarks, reported that the accord had surprised several onlookers it had consulted, as it appeared to fall outside the spirit of an initial Memorandum of Understanding for the talks signed in Mexico in August. According to the Economist, the stated goal was to hold fair elections in return for the lifting of international sanctions.

Although there is nothing in the compact that we have not heard before in a different form, owing to the fact that this has been incorporated into an agreement about internal matters, its clauses are quite breath-taking. The nonsense of the preamble aside, first it ratifies “the historic and inalienable rights of … Venezuela over the territory of Essequibo …” and defines that country’s eastern border as the Essequibo River. Second, it expresses “disagreement with the decision of the International Court of Justice to grant itself jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Arbitral Award of 1899, based on the unilateral request of Guyana.”

Third, it issues “a new call to Guyana to resume the path of direct negotiations with the Venezuelan state, in order to reach a practical and mutually satisfactory settlement,” in conformity to what it says is international law and the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Lastly it commits to dedicating “best efforts to the national pedagogical dissemination and international recognition of Venezuela’s position embodied in this Agreement.”

President Maduro may have cynical reasons for wanting to bring the opposition factions on board on the only issue on which there can be unequivocal agreement with them. Apart from anything else it can serve as a diversionary tactic, particularly if he comes under great pressure.

Where the opposition itself is concerned, no one had any doubt that whatever the validity of its case on the domestic front, is has always maintained a reactionary posture where the Essequibo controversy is concerned. Mr Juan Guaidó, for example, who considers himself the interim president of Venezuela, has not been reticent about his views on the subject, and neither has the leader of his party, Mr Leopoldo López. Both of them visited the Guyana portion of Ankoko some years ago, the latter relieving himself of the customary extremist comments in relation to Venezuelan sovereignty over our territory.

Guyanese who know something about the details of the controversy are justified in being nonplussed about just how ill-informed Venezuelans at the highest levels of society appear to be. Could they not just pick up a copy of the Geneva Agreement, for example, and read what it actually says? It is available all over the place, including online. It is mercifully brief, clear in its intent, and comprehensible even to those who have never encountered a treaty before. But then this is probably not a case of Venezuelan politicians failing to familiarise themselves with the facts, so much as a dogged refusal to accept what the facts are. Their economic avarice is clear, more especially since ExxonMobil began drilling in Guyana’s waters. Argus says that the Stabroek Block is estimated to produce some 800,000 b/d in 2025, easily surpassing Venezuela which at the moment only pumps around 500,000 b/d. Once upon a time it produced 3 million b/d.

It must be humiliating for our neighbour which for so many years has had the clout to bully this country, and until very recent times stymie every major project in Essequibo. But of course its cupidity is sheathed in what it pretends is its moral case, and it is this which it will be promoting in its “national pedagogical dissemination” about the controversy, and in its campaign to secure international recognition of its ‘rights’. It can only be remarked that this will not be the first time it has indoctrinated its children in the schools, or mounted a systematic international campaign to get its claims recognised. However, where the last-mentioned is concerned, this time the matter is already with the ICJ, and most nations will want to see the outcome of that before giving Caracas a ready ear.

As quoted above, the agreement refers to Venezuela’s ‘historic rights’, and one wonders how many of those in government or the opposition have actually paid serious attention to the history of the illegal claim. If one is to judge by what appears in the Venezuelan media, not very much. But then again, the Venezuelan political class is not really interested in facts so much as what it wants to believe – or what it wants others to believe. Guyana’s recourse to the ICJ is the only sensible option for this country when faced with such recalcitrance and irrationality, and if a peaceful outcome is to be secured.

One wonders too if Venezuelan politicians are operating in the real world. Following the agreement President Maduro’s representative Mr Jorge Rodríguez echoed its third clause, telling the press, “We will call on Guyana to resume the path of negotiations in order to reach an agreement on the territory.” Leaving aside the matter of why we should want to negotiate away our own territory, it simply makes no sense to anyone who is even mildly familiar with how the international community operates, as to why we should abandon the world’s foremost arbitral court for territorial matters, in favour of bilateral negotiations with Venezuela.

Caracas seems to be arguing that because it does not recognise the proceedings in The Hague, Guyana should not be pursuing the controversy issue there at all. It has already raised objections to the finding of the tribunal that it has jurisdiction to hear the case relating to the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which it repeated in the agreement. Unfortunately for both the Venezuelan government and opposition most countries will recognise the decision flowing from those proceedings. Those operating in the political firmament to the west seem to be stuck in a time warp; they have not fully absorbed the fact that they are no longer in the same position they once were to bully Guyana, in addition to which the world around them has changed.

“[The] agreement is an overt threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana,” said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday.” Indeed it is.