Suriname’s claim of the New River Triangle is “nothing new” Suriname Ambassador to Guyana Nisa Kurban Badoe said in a preliminary report to Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge.
On Tuesday, Greenidge told the Guyana Chronicle that the Surinamese Ambassador was summoned and an explanation sought on the renewed claims by Suriname. The Guyanese Government is currently awaiting an official explanation but the Foreign Affairs Minister said “she (the Surinamese Ambassador) was suggesting… that it is nothing new.”
Surinamese President Desi Bouterse would have reportedly told his country’s National Assembly that the New River Triangle (Tigri) will be “back on the agenda” and that he had no “choice” but to do so.
Guyanese Diplomat and former Foreign Affairs Minister, Rudy Insanally, in a separate interview with the Guyana Chronicle, said while Suriname’s timing leaves for much curiosity, it is very difficult to establish a link between the renewed claims by Suriname and the aggressive actions displayed by Venezuela in recent times.
“You may want to think that there is some linkage but that may not be because those two claims are independent,” he said.
He said though it has been long established that the New River Triangle is that of Guyana, the two countries must now engage in dialogue to garner a greater understanding of the renewed claims.
“The Government of Guyana has to decide how they will approach it but the two sides must understand why they (Suriname) are making these claims now.” In the case of Venezuela, Insanally said diplomacy must prevail but with much determination on the part of Guyana.
In addressing the issues last Friday, President David Granger described the claims by Suriname as “spurious,” stating clearly that Guyana would not allow its sovereignty to be violated. He said though Suriname’s claim is not new, it would not be treated lightly.
Apart from the New River Triangle, Suriname claims the Corentyne River and that is still a matter of controversy because there has never been any treaty demarcating the boundary between Guyana and Suriname, the President said.
He told the press that while the Government is aware of the historical claim that Suriname has made to the New River, now is not the time to advance the claim.
“There is, as you know, historical evidence that the Eastern boundary between Brazil, what was then British Guiana and what was then Dutch Guiana was clearly marked at least by 1936 and that mark is literally indelible.
“What we do know is that the boundaries of all three countries meet there. They don’t meet at New River, they don’t meet anywhere else,” the President posited. He was referring to the international boundary line of the Kutari River.
“So whatever argument the Surinamese government advances has to start with the Kutari and that’s our argument and that’s what we’re going to stand by; that’s the international boundary. You cannot convene a meeting of your Parliament and change the boundary.”
Meanwhile, during a meeting with President Granger and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro agreed to accept a UN team in Caracas to investigate its claims that the 1899 award which settled the countries’ borders is null and void.
Subsequent to that investigation, the team will report to the UN Secretary General for him to continue discussions to find a lasting solution to Venezuela’s claim.
On February 17, 1966 the Geneva Agreement was signed by Venezuela and Guyana, allowing for a mixed commission of Guyanese and Venezuelan representatives to be convened with the primary objective of finding satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom.
Venezuelan had contended that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela was null and void. The agreement also provided that no new claim or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in these territories (of Venezuela and British Guiana) shall be asserted while this agreement is in force, nor shall any claim whatsoever be asserted otherwise than in the Mixed Commission while that Commission is in being. However, under severe diplomatic pressure, Venezuela agreed to a 12 year moratorium on the dispute with the Protocol of Port of Spain in 1970.
By Svetlana Marshall