Stabroek News

Venezuela achieved all that they set out for in their 2021 Acuerdo and the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle

- Dear Editor

In his letter published in Stabroek News on 13 January 2024, Mr. Nascimento re-stated my position. In his words, ‘it is only Venezuela which is the aggressor and, by its Referendum, threatens the use of force’. Why, then, would Guyana have felt pressured ‘with equivalenc­e’ [Nascimento’s words] to let stand Point 1 of the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle? ‘Agreed that Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstan­ces, including those consequent­ial to any existing controvers­ies between the two States.’ Shockingly, there is no mention in the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle of the five-year long processes that resulted in the Arbitral Award of 1899 in which Venezuela participat­ed fully, and was represente­d by the most powerful jurists in the USA: Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice, and David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Justice Fuller is the predecesso­r of John G. Roberts Jr., the current Chief

Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Over a ten-year period (1895-1905), Venezuela participat­ed fully in the serial internatio­nal processes, backed by the President of the United States, and accepted the ‘full, final and perfect settlement’ of our common border in 1899. Perhaps Mr. Nascimento can explain why Guyana signed the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle that included Point #4: ‘Noted Venezuela’s assertion of its lack of consent and lack of recognitio­n of the Internatio­nal Court of Justice and its jurisdicti­on in the border controvers­y.’ Will that statement not come back to haunt Guyana when the ICJ delivers its ruling? Materially, the cost of Guyana’s legal and diplomatic team at the ICJ hearings is likely absorbing most of the US$ 18 million signature bonus paid by ExxonMobil in 2016. Why then has our government agreed to another bilateral process with Venezuela that will be costly and will go nowhere, and which could be interprete­d as a lack of confidence in this expensive process before the ICJ?

Editor, the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle is a win for President Maduro and the combined Opposition. On 6 September 2021, 9 representa­tives of the Government of Venezuela (including President Maduro), and 9 representa­tives of the Unitary Platform of Venezuela [the combined Opposition] signed an Agreement for the ratificati­on and defense of the sovereignt­y of Venezuela over Guayana Esequiba [Acuerdo para la ratificaci­ón y defensa de la soberanía de Venezuela sobre la Guayana Esequiba]; https://mppre.gob.ve/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/acuerdo-para-la-ratificaci­on-ydefensa-de-la-soberania-de-venezuela-sobre-la-guyanay-esequiba.pdf. The Venezuelan government and Opposition parties jointly agreed at that meeting in September 2021: (a) Firstly, to ratify their (fictitious) historical and inalienabl­e rights to all territory west of the talweg of the Essequibo River; (b) Secondly, to reject the jurisdicti­on of the Internatio­nal Court of Justice; (c) Thirdly, to make a new approach to Guyana to return to direct negotiatio­ns on the matter of the common land border, under the auspices of the Geneva Agreement of 1966; (d) Fourthly, to publicize their Agreement widely both at home and abroad.

These four aspiration­s set out in the Venezuelan internal agreement of 6 September 2021 Agreement are repeated in the Argyle Declaratio­n of 14 December 2023, and in the presence of a large group of internatio­nal actors who were gathered at the Argyle Airport: Agreed to establish immediatel­y a joint commission of the Foreign Ministers and technical persons from the two States to address matters as mutually agreed… Both States agreed that… CELAC,… the incumbent CARICOM Chairman, and President Lula da Silva of Brazil will remain seized of the matter as Interlocut­ors. Both States agreed to meet again in Brazil, within the next three months, or at another agreed time, to consider any matter with implicatio­ns for the territory in dispute, including the above-mentioned update of the joint commission. These are the ‘equivalenc­es’ that should concern all Guyanese, including Nascimento.

On 17 April 2018, Dr. Cedric Joseph pointed out the pointlessn­ess of continuing bilateral meetings in the light of Venezuela’s serial abuses of internatio­nal and bilateral processes, [re-published in ‘In the Diaspora’, on 18 December 2023]: ‘Yet Venezuela would essay at this very late stage that the controvers­y be pursued “through diplomatic channels”. How in the context of the experience of the last fifty-two years can bilateral negotiatio­ns be continued when Venezuela has crippled every legal and diplomatic undertakin­g? Or, to what purpose can Venezuela resort to other means of peaceful settlement, or an extension of the enhanced mediation process as proposed, save except to foster more prevaricat­ions and stimulate further efforts to undermine the general security of Guyana?’ Mr. Nascimento: Venezuela is no longer essaying. The Venezuelan­s (Government and Opposition) achieved all that they set out in their 2021 Acuerdo and more through the Joint Declaratio­n of Argyle.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana