Declaring that Venezuela’s maritime Decree of May 26th 2015 was a “baseless and shameless” bid to usurp Guyana’s territory, Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge yesterday said that a definitive solution must be found to this shadow that has hung over the country for 49 years and he signalled that the government would be moving for a juridical settlement of the border controversy.
In his maiden foreign policy statement to the first sitting of the 11th Parliament, Greenidge fuelled months of reports that Guyana was preparing to look outside of the UN Good Offices process and examine other options available under the Geneva Agreement of 1966.
“For more than 25 years the Good Offices Process, as one of the chosen means of peaceful settlement, has been in operation. Unhappily, it has signally failed to resolve the issue. The Decree of 26 May, 2015, has served to widen even further the gap between Guyana and Venezuela.
“Notwithstanding the fact that an International Boundary Settlement already exists in the form of the Arbitral Award of 1899, a juridical settlement in respect of Venezuela’s contention that this Award is null and void appears to be the best, if not the only way now open to us. To that eventuality we must now direct our full attention. Guyana of course stands ready to continue discussions with Venezuela with respect to our bilateral relations while we pursue a peaceful settlement within the framework of the Geneva Agreement where the UN Secretary General has a defined role”, Greenidge stated, in what observers say was a masterstroke to utilise the first sitting of the 11th Parliament to set out firmly where Guyana stood.
With Venezuelan Ambassador to Guyana, Reina Margarita Arratia Diaz sitting exactly two rows behind him and appearing ill at ease, Greenidge rounded on the Nicolas Maduro administration for issuing the Decree which came on the 49th anniversary of this country’s independence.
“The issuance of a Decree is well within President Maduro’s constitutional right. What, Mr. Speaker, is not his right is to utilize the sovereign territory of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana to generate maritime territory to meet Venezuela’s illegal ambitions. That is precisely what the Decree purports to do in relation to Guyana’s Essequibo. In addition, it mandates and authorizes the Venezuelan Navy to secure the area and clearly to prevent any other State from exploiting, without Venezuela’s consent, the resources of the area, an area that now includes a significant portion of Guyana’s maritime space”, Greenidge declared, as the Venezuelan envoy flanked by the Russian and Chinese ambassadors listened intently.
Speaking in the absence of the opposition PPP/C which has not decided whether it will enter Parliament, Greenidge said the Decree is intended to deny Guyana the right to continue the pursuit of existing developmental initiatives and impacts negatively on other pending and future development initiatives.
“Contrary to the Venezuelan Government’s public statements, the Decree cannot be considered an act of sovereignty where it applies to territory that does not belong to Venezuela. It flies in the face of all norms and principles of international law and it negates the very commitments assented to by Venezuela in numerous international and regional forums regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes. Guyana therefore condemns this Decree in the strongest possible terms”, Greenidge railed.
He noted that in a recent public release and in a Statement communicated by the Venezuelan Ambassador here, who was one of the first envoys to make a courtesy call on President David Granger, the Venezuelan Government is claiming that it had done nothing wrong in issuing the Decree and that Guyana had overreacted. Greenidge said that Guyana’s response reflected the view that the Decree was an “act of territorial aggrandizement”.
Greenidge, a former finance minister and international civil servant, questioned Venezuela’s motives behind the Decree and adverted to nearly 50 years of its economic and military aggression including its occupation of Guyana’s half of Ankoko island in 1966 and the stymieing of the Upper Mazaruni hydropower project in the 1970s.
He however focused on its more recent aggression which has centred on oil exploration efforts in Guyana’s waters.
“Honourable Members will recall that in 2013 a Venezuelan naval vessel seized a seismic vessel conducting surveys in Guyana’s maritime space on behalf of Anadarko, a Company that had been granted exploration rights. The action created a climate of uncertainty among potential investors in Guyana’s maritime space. Exxon-Mobil is amongst the companies that continued to work on its concession area, in spite of the use of force by Venezuela against the Teknik Perdana. In fact, no reasonable observer could have possibly anticipated that Venezuela could ever regard the position where the Deep Water Champion (for Exxon-Mobil) is located as even remotely falling within areas claimed by Venezuela. Clearly, as was revealed at the end of February, we all underestimated Venezuela’s appetite for territory. Decree No. 1.787 has confirmed this appetite”, Greenidge stated.
He pointed out that efforts by the previous PPP/C government at getting Venezuela to discuss the issue of maritime delimitation have to date proved futile. He noted that on 30 September, 2011 his predecessor, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett and her Venezuelan counterpart, “recognized that the delimitation of the maritime boundaries between their two States remains an outstanding issue and agreed that such delimitation will require negotiations”.
However such negotiations never took place despite Guyana’s best efforts to convene a meeting for this purpose, he said.
The Anadarko incident, he noted, had occurred just a few months after President Maduro had visited Guyana and in a Joint Declaration with former President Donald Ramotar expressed satisfaction with the result of their dialogue. On that same day, Greenidge said that a group of Venezuelans accompanied by armed military personnel landed at Eteringbang from Venezuela. A few weeks later there was a similar occurrence with opposition Venezuelan legislators.
He also revealed that just last year Venezuela interfered in a hydropower initiative between Guyana and Brazil as part of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) development programme. He said that Caracas, which is also a member of UNASUR, formally objected to this development and requested both the Brazilian Government and the Brazilian firm undertaking the feasibility studies in parts of Essequibo to desist from undertaking any action in what the Venezuelan Government described as being ‘unquestionably Venezuelan territory’. He said that a similar sentiment was communicated to Guyana.
He restated the bedrock of this country’s case against Caracas that the Arbitral Award of 1899 definitively established the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.
Greenidge said that it is clear that “Venezuela, by the aforesaid actions, is no longer contending that the Arbitral Award of 1899 is null and void. The inescapable conclusion, and one which portends grave danger to regional and international peace and security, is that the Venezuelan Government has now elevated the contention of nullity and invalidity to an assertion of fact. The Decree implies that international norms and good practices are not applicable to Venezuela and consequently that the Decree with respect to the Essequibo region as well as the maritime space the region provides is ipso facto Venezuelan territory.”
Greenidge disclosed that Guyana has been in contact with several members of the international community and has made special approaches to other Member States of the Caribbean and of the Commonwealth. Other steps are also being taken to ensure that Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are not compromised, he said.
“For 49 years we have lived in the shadow of Venezuela’s illegal claim and attempts to despoil our country. The sword of Damocles, for the most part unseen, nevertheless hangs over our heads. Unless removed, it will be the legacy that will be inherited by our children. It is time to end this cycle. A definitive solution has to be found that will put to rest Venezuela’s contention of nullity.
“Venezuela has, by its recent Decree, virtually given notice that it intends to continue increasing the pressure on Guyana and to weaken our resistance to its illegal claim. We will not waiver in our resistance”, Greenidge declared.
Apart from the diplomatic and related measures of “resistance”, Greenidge said the Geneva Agreement of 17th February 1966, a legal instrument assented to by Guyana, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, “remains the best hope for keeping the issue between Guyana and Venezuela from going totally out of control. The mandate of the Secretary General of the United Nations under this Agreement is quite clear. It is very specific.”
He referred to Article IV (2) which says that “… the Secretary General of the United Nations shall choose another of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and so on until the controversy has been resolved or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted.”
