– Guyana awaiting assessment of UN Secretary-General

PRESIDENT David Granger remains optimistic that outgoing United Nations’ Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will hold to his commitment to give “an assessment” of the next step to be taken in the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy, and refer same to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a final and definitive ruling, thereby ending this controversy that has deeply affected Guyana’s development over the past 50 years.

Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge is currently in New York, meeting with incoming Secretary-General of the United

Nations (UN), His Excellency Mr. Antonio Guterres, in a process designed to secure the promised recommendation.

During a radio interview with Gordon Moseley on 94.1FM Radio on Friday, even while in Morocco attending the UN Climate Summit, President Granger had this to say: “We have to hold Mr. Ban Ki-moon to his own words. The word he used was ‘an assessment’, of course, [and] November is quickly passing, so we expect Mr. Ban Ki-moon to fulfill his obligation to let us

have ‘an assessment’.”

Guyana had approached the outgoing Secretary-General of the UN to act in accordance with his obligations under the Geneva Agreement — to choose another means of settling the border controversy between the two countries, in accordance with Article 33 of the UN Charter; and Mr. Ban had indicated that he would recommend the way forward before he demits office in December.

On the sidelines of the 71st United Nations General Assembly held in New York last September, outgoing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had told President Granger that he would make “an assessment” of the situation by the end of November.

“Of course he is demitting office and Mr. Guterres is going to be the person to make decisions; and of course you know Guyana has (taken) a stand that (after) 50 years of talking, we need to go to the Court (International Court of Justice) and have this matter settled. This is what we expect, I won’t use the word hope; it is not a planning strategy. We have done our homework, relayed our case before the international community, and Mr. Ban Ki-moon is quite aware of the power he has — and Mr Guterres, (as do) all Secretaries-General of the UN — under the Geneva Agreement,” the President said.

The President also noted that Guyana is constrained from taking any action outside of the Geneva Agreement, and he stressed that a new path will have to be carved by the Secretary-General.

“We have exhausted all other courses, the one that is left is to go to the courts, and this is what we expect the Secretary-General to do,” President Granger added.

Meanwhile, on November 16, Canada’s High Commissioner, Pierre Giroux, was quoted on Demerara Waves online as stating that he does not believe Venezuela would respect the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should the border controversy be placed there.

“If it goes to the International Court of Justice, Venezuela does not recognise the ruling of the International Court of Justice, and they will simply say ‘we don’t recognise the decision’,” High Commissioner Giroux told a University of Guyana (UG)-sponsored forum titled “After Obama, More History: Implications of the US Elections for Guyana and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.”

Asked to respond to the statement by the Canadian diplomat, President Granger said Guyana’s recommendation for the controversy to be taken to, and determined by, the ICJ is in accordance with the Geneva Agreement to which Venezuela is a signatory.

“The course we are recommending is not an illegal course; we are not outlaws. Venezuela committed (itself) in February 1966 by signing the Geneva Agreement. Everything Guyana has done is in accordance with the Geneva Agreement. I am not aware of what the High Commissioner of Canada could have meant. As far as I understand, we are on safe ground, and Venezuela has committed since 1966 February to accept the outcome of the Secretary-General of the UN.”

Guyana has steadfastly rejected Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 Arbitral Award which settled the countries’ borders is null and void, and insists that the controversy must be settled by juridical means, and not by threats.