Thinking aloud… The case of Guyana going to the World Court for Venezuela

THIS nation was advised more than half a century ago that Venezuela’s spurious claim to two-thirds of our country is a controversy and not a dispute.
It was because the matter was seen as a controversy that the Good Officer process was put in place to build relationship, with the aim that Venezuela will come around to respecting the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award. It is this Award that sets our boundaries.

On October 3, 1899, the five-panel jurists, having completed their work, signed,  “Now, we the undersigned Arbitrators do hereby make and publish our decision, determination, and Award of, upon and concerning the questions submitted to us by the said Treaty of Arbitration, and do hereby, conformably to the said Treaty of Arbitration, finally decide, award, and determine that the boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela is as follows…” (http://www.guyana.org/features/guyanastory/chapter86.html)

The Award was the final settlement, binding on all parties/countries that participated, with the rules known and agreed upon before the process commenced. The countries that were involved in settling this matter as interested parties were Britain and Venezuela.
The way an arbitration works is when you enter into this arrangement, it means that all sides have given the responsibility to the arbitrators to make a decision that will be binding on all the involved parties.

Any member of that panel, at the time when preparing to submit its findings, that has failed to issue a minority report cannot be taken seriously after he had concurred making the report unanimous.
You cannot agree to making a report unanimous and then subsequently express a dissenting view, because it brings into question the character of the person.

We should not feel inflicted nor constrained by this one coward, Severo Mallet-Prevost, the jurist representing Venezuela, who allegedly requested that after his death his opinion be made public.
It is said, according to him, that the judges were pressured by the Tribunal President, Frederic de Martens, a Russian jurist, and there was some sort of political deal between Russia and Britain to deliver the decision.

At Independence (May 26, 1966), the State of Guyana has been clearly prescribed by way of its borders and boundaries: North, south, east and west. To my mind, in moving to the World Court, officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), we are saying this matter is a dispute, because courts settle disputes; not controversy.

NO PROBLEM
Guyana does not have a problem with the Award, and respects the universal principles/rules that govern how arbitration works and would like Venezuela to do likewise.

Correctly, Guyanese understand the Venezuela/Guyana border issue as a controversy, and have over the years treated it as such. It is Venezuela, on the other hand, that sees the issue as a dispute, presenting the false claim that the matter is not resolved, and that that country is being denied what it thinks is theirs.

The truth is, it has no credibility to make such claim. Whether Mallet-Prevost agreed with the Award or not is beside the point. What is important is that in the five-man jurists panel where the majority or all (unanimous) have agreed, it is considered the decision of the tribunal, and is binding on all the parties/participants.

Guyana has done excellent work over the years, selling its case nationally and internationally on the border controversy, though in recent years, there has been deficiency in the information machinery at the local level in sensitising the citizens of the history behind the matter, what is at stake, and why we must continue to stand as one on this matter.

In the aforesaid circumstances, to take this case to the World Court is cause for concern for me as to whether we have now taken a decision to deem this issue a dispute. It is not Guyana that is claiming a part of Venezuela; it is Venezuela claiming a part of Guyana, and for that reason, I don’t believe that we should be going to the court, since the border and boundaries are intact, and we respect that.
If Venezuela has a problem and continues to consider this issue as a dispute, it is for them to take it to the court.

As a country, we need to continue doing our business within the parameters of our borders, ensuring they are secured, even as we continue to intensify international pressure to have our neighbour come to its senses. In taking this matter to the court, it can be seen as putting ourselves in a defensive position, which, to the aggressor, can be construed as weakness. In making a decision to place it before the ICJ jurists, who we do not know or from whence they came and where their loyalty lies, an act to determine what happens to two-thirds of this country makes me nervous. Very nervous.

JUST SUPPOSING
Let me be the devil’s advocate here and say, suppose there exists another situation whereby a cowardly panellist or whereby the majority on the panel say the boundaries are not properly placed, or Venezuela is entitled to two-thirds of Guyana, what explanation will be given to the Guyanese society? How are we prepared to deal with this? We are thinking and talking about most of Guyana and all the rich resources that lies within.

The apparent reluctance by Venezuela, in the public sphere, of not wanting to go to the World Court can be a ploy when examined how negotiators behave. Since Guyana has moved and recognised Venezuela’s position on the border issue, Venezuela may be seeing our action as a major success, and awaiting us to run down the road, do the leg work to justify that all the time the issue was not a controversy but a dispute.

Why do we as a country want to take this issue to the ICJ is a question that needs to be answered. And it needs to be done before this government signs any document agreeing to such an act.  An issue of this nature, where the country’s boundaries are already settled and some leaders are proposing to place them before an unknown group at the ICJ to be re-litigated on, will it not be a prudent act for this to be discussed at various levels to arrive at consensus as to a way forward?
The National Assembly, the nation’ s highest decision-making forum, can also weigh in, and not via debate but through discussions. In a debate format, you have a winner and loser; in a discussion, the intent is to find common ground and solve the problem.

There is no surety how the ICJ will rule; and whichever side the ruling comes down on, though we would want it to be in our favour, expectations for compliance will be held. We must therefore proceed with deliberative judgement, and it must be seen that a decision to go to this body had the involvement and blessing of the citizens.
As for me, I am not quite sold on this World Court approach, and stand to benefit if other opinions can be publicly shared.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.