UN Permanent Representative, Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, affirms
rubbishes allegations that Guyana territory being used for military aggression
urges Venezuela to act in accordance with international law

POURING cold water on the “falsehoods” being peddled by Venezuela, Guyana’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN), Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, has stood firm on the position that Guyana will not participate in any activity that will bypass the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Guyanese Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett made those remarks during a reply to the statement by Venezuela’s Foreign Minister in the General Debate of the 78th UN General Assembly.
“Accordingly, if Venezuela truly believes that the best, or the only, way to resolve the controversy is by adherence to the 1966 Geneva Agreement, then it should adhere to that Agreement and plead its case to the ICJ, and accept the decision of the Court, when it is issued, as a final and binding settlement of the controversy.

Guyana will not agree to any procedure that contradicts the express provisions of the Geneva Agreement and bypasses the Court, which is the only means of settlement that is now authorised by Article IV of that Agreement,” the Guyanese Ambassador firmly stated.

While further addressing the statement made by Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett said: “In his address in the General Debate of the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, 23rd September 2023, the Minister of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela allowed himself falsehoods that were excessive even by their accustomed standards of untruthfulness in relation to my country.”

Moreover, the UN permanent representative stated that the international community’s intelligence should not be disrespected by Venezuela’s allegations.
She related: “The intelligence of the international community should not be insulted by Venezuela’s allegations that Guyana is allowing its territory to be used as a platform for military aggression against any State including the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This all derives from Venezuela’s grotesque claim to two-thirds of Guyana.
Adding: “Throughout, the Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has acted, and continues to act, in relation to neighbouring Venezuela, in full accordance with international law and has consistently invited the Government of Venezuela to do the same.”

Affirming that Venezuela’s diatribes have been fully refuted, Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett reiterated the call for Venezuela to confirm its adherence to the judicial process of the ICJ.
She then went on to remind Venezuela of the timeline and the number of dispute resolutions that were employed before litigation at the ICJ.

Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett said: “The Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana wishes to remind Venezuela of the following: The 1966 Geneva Agreement is in fact the binding legal instrument that provides for the settlement of the controversy over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.
The obligatory settlement procedure is set forth in Article IV of the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Under that Article, when bilateral negotiations failed to achieve a settlement, Guyana and Venezuela agreed to refer the controversy to the United Nations Secretary General to choose the means of final settlement.”

According to her, the Secretary General chose, in the first instance, the use of his good offices to bring about a settlement satisfactory to both parties and the good offices process took place with the participation of Guyana and Venezuela over a period of more than 20 years, without success or any progress toward success.
In January 2018, acting in accordance with Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, the Secretary General determined that the good offices process had failed, and he chose a new means of dispute settlement: litigation before the ICJ.

With that being said, under Article IV, his decision was binding on Guyana and Venezuela. Guyana then filed an Application with the Court seeking its final and binding Judgement on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the boundary between the two States, in accordance with Article IV of the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the Secretary General’s decision of January 2018.

“Venezuela twice appeared before the Court to object to its exercise of jurisdiction in the matter, and the Court rejected Venezuela’s objections both times. The Court ruled that the basis of its jurisdiction was precisely Article IV of the Geneva 3 Agreement and the Secretary General’s decision that the dispute should be resolved by the Court,” the UN permanent representative said.