By Ariana Gordon

EVEN as Guyana, on February 17, will observe the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Agreement, renowned Guyanese Diplomat Sir Shridath Ramphal asserts that the only available means towards resolution of the age-old controversy between Guyana and Venezuela is to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ).Sir Shridath was at the time part of a panel discussion on the Geneva Agreement. That panel also comprised Ambassadors Cedric Joseph and Ronald Austin. The Guyanese diplomat, who was present upon the signing of the Agreement on February 17, 1966, said he would like to see a proper conclusion to the matter, and more specifically, he “would like to see the fulfillment of the Geneva Agreement”.

“That article that calls on the [UN] Secretary General to act has come. I would like to see that activated. We have begun the discussions with the Secretary General. I would like to see that taken to completion and the Secretary General hand the resolution of the issue over to the International Court of Justice,” said Sir Shridath Ramphal.

He said that having closure to the controversy would mean a lot “for the world; for the rule of law; for the sanctity of treaties, which is of importance to the whole world. It would mean everything for relations between Guyana and Venezuela.”

The diplomat said the people of Venezuela are “good people” but they have been “indoctrinated by their Governments”. Guyana, he said, holds out a hand of friendship to the people of Venezuela. He also noted that one of the great achievements of the settlement would be “an opportunity for true friendship to develop between the peoples of Guyana and Venezuela”.

Sir Shridath explained that the signing of the Geneva Agreement was in a sense an essential part of a “larger picture of Guyana’s Independence”, as it was premised around the outrageous claims by Venezuela to more than half of Guyana.

“Guyana was on the cusp of Independence, we were about to be free,” he remarked.

He explained that Venezuela attempted to stall Guyana’s Independence by agitating its claim to the Essequibo. Britain, Guyana’s colonial masters, strongly resisted the claims by Venezuela, and from their standpoint there was no question about Guyana’s move to become an Independent State. The British Government arranged for a meeting of representatives of Britain, Venezuela and the about-to-be-independent Guyana.

“It took place in Geneva, on the 16 and 17th (February 1966). The agreement was signed on the 17th between Britain and Venezuela, and Britain invited the new Government, the Burnham Government, to be at the meeting, because the new Guyana would inherit whatever would be the conclusions of the meeting,” Sir Shridath recounted.

Guyana, of course, became party to the agreement when it attained Independence a few months later, said Sir Shridath, who today is probably the only person alive who had witnessed the signing.

Venezuela, he said, was adamant, and threatened Guyana, thereby resulting in the Geneva Agreement being signed. He posited that the agreement had to be signed if Guyana wanted to attain its Independence.

CONTRIVED PRESENTATION
The international public servant describes the claims by Venezuela as “very callous”. He noted that its presentation on the Geneva Agreement was a “contrived presentation.”

“The Geneva Agreement talks about the controversy, and sets out a procedure by which that controversy could be settled, and it defines what controversy was. Controversy was the row, the dispute that arose out of their contention that the arbitral award from the 1899 tribunal was null and void because of their account deriving from…all those years ago.”

Venezuela’s claims have changed over the years, the diplomat said, noting that some 50 years later, Venezuela claims that the controversy was more or less set aside at Geneva and the controversy is really Venezuela’s old historical claim.

“…you are not to worry with the award. Why? Because, if you took that issue to any international law body, it would be rejected out of hand,” said Sir Shridath, who noted that Venezuela has failed to produce one iota of evidence in support of its claim.

“They have tried all manner of deeds…they have not produced a shred of evidence, or even an argument that that award must be set aside. Venezuela’s claim really rests on Spanish colonialism, and it is so far out of tune that to talk about Bolivar, this is the very opposite of what Bolivar would be seeking after, which is Guyana’s freedom,” he remarked.

He stressed that the only way for Guyana to rid itself of this controversy is to have the matter settled by the highest international tribunal, the International Court of Justice.

A LEGAL ISSUE
“It is a legal issue, legal contention, and must be settled by the ICJ; and Guyana has said strongly that that is the direction in which it will go. Fortunately, the Geneva Convention provides a means for this to happen.”

It is for the United Nations Secretary General to decide at this point the means provided by the Charter to have the controversy resolved. Guyana has been party to conciliation, mediation and arbitration; the only avenue available to Guyana at this point is juridical settlement.

“Guyana calls on Secretary General of the UN to help the world to be rid of this source of conflict,” Sir Shridath said.

He noted that Guyana can be rid of this “impediment” by going to court. “It is a bold and courageous thing to do, but we are so confident that justice is on the side of Guyana that it is the proper thing to do.”

The Geneva Agreement, he added, continues to have relevance after 50 years, as it is the machinery through which Guyana can have the controversy resolved. “It is a means to finality,” Sir Shridath concluded.

Ambassador Cedric Joseph explained that Venezuela accepted the agreement, and even contributed to the spirit of the agreement, and he asserted that there “can be no more option premised on diplomacy”.

Like Sir Shridath, Ambassador Joseph said the only available option to the controversy is a juridical settlement.

“How do you nullify or disregard an international agreement of 116 years?” he asked, noting that Guyana will no longer negotiate on the matter. He believes it is for Venezuela to put its contention to test at the ICJ.

The ambassador urged the Government of Guyana to keep the subject alive internationally, and urge the UN Secretary General to move the matter to the ICJ for definitive positions on points of law.

Ambassador Ronald Austin, a Guyanese diplomat for more than 35 years, noted that it is difficult for Venezuela to hold back on its claim. He said there had been no claim from Venezuela for 63 years, but just before Guyana attained Independence, the claim surfaced.

“Venezuela’s problem is that after the reopening of the demarcation of the borders, they virtually backed themselves into a corner. They have educated their public to believe that they have been cheated out of their territory, which according to them should belong to them.”

What Venezuela has done is reject the 1899 arbitral award. “One must concede to give Venezuela some credit that this process has been intense, relentless, and has been going on for a very long period.”

Ambassador Austin said Venezuela is not going to pull back from its position. He noted that they are in a difficult position. “It is hard for them; I don’t think any Venezuelan Government at the present time can say let us settle this matter and survive for more than 24 hours. It is in the schools; the Navy in Venezuela has a special department which has a mandate to study this issue on a regular basis,” he added.

Ambassador Austin said Venezuela has been “quite reckless, and has breached that agreement on so many occasions” that it leaves one to wonder if the country would honour any legal agreement with which it is presented.

“Venezuela is a threat; the Venezuelan controversy is an extension of a threat to this country, and every single Guyanese child and adult must understand this,” the Ambassador asserted.