For the third time this year President David Granger appeared before the National Assembly to address MPs – and by extension the nation – on the matter of Guyana’s frontiers. This time, he told the House, Venezuela’s Ambassador to Ottawa had written to the CEO of the Canadian-based Guyana Goldfields mining company, whose Aurora mine produced its first gold bar in August. In that letter, which was dated October 13 and which the President read out to the assembled MPs, the Ambassador accused the company of infringing the territorial sovereignty of Venezuela. He went on to say “… you are hereby fully given notice of the respective legal actions that could herein occur.”
This is all so much twaddle, of course, since Venezuela has no legal or moral claim to the territory on which it has fixed its greedy eyes for the last half century, and as such the concession which Guyana Goldfields holds from the Government of Guyana, is beyond legal reproach. But then, as the Guyanese Head of State pointed out, this has been our western neighbour’s strategy from the beginning, viz, to block development in this country and hopefully thereby to wear us down over time. All that can be said about wearing us down is that the tactic has never been rewarded with success.
Even as early as May 1968, a communiqué from the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs was carried as an advertisement in the London Times stating that Venezuela did not recognize any type of “supposed concessions” granted or to be granted by the Guyana Government west of the “Esequivo River from its source to its mouth.” This is only nation which has been true to its word over the decades in this one respect ‒ although it does it no credit.
For his part, President Granger cited the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who, incidentally, has been misrepresented as taking a more lenient line on concessions in Essequibo from 2004 onwards. This myth came about possibly because the Venezuelan opposition twisted what he had said when visiting Georgetown to provide ‘evidence’ that he had made concessions to the Guyana Government, and had agreed to allow development projects here.
President Granger, however, correctly distinguished between projects involving the kind of infrastructure which would directly benefit the lives of the people of Essequibo, such as water and electricity and which Mr Chávez was prepared to tolerate, and those such as oil, that he placed in an entirely different category. In any case, it was none other than President Chávez who a few years earlier had blocked the Beal space project.
In the meantime, President Nicolás Maduro is prancing around the Caribbean, doling out ‘sweeties’ and attempting to bring Guyana’s traditional allies in Caricom around to his way of thinking on territorial issues, or at least persuade them to mute what they might have to say. Last weekend he was in St Lucia, a nation he has not visited before, although he had dispatched his Foreign Minister and a Vice President there at an earlier stage. He himself went to St Kitts-Nevis and Dominica prior to the UN General Assembly meeting. One cannot help but feel he might be attempting to dilute Caricom’s support for Guyana in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference to be held in Malta next month.
And now we have President Desi Bouterse of Suriname too telling his Assembly that the New River Triangle issue would be placed “back on the agenda.” As we reported on Friday, President Granger’s response to Parliament was that if Suriname is convinced that its claim can withstand legal scrutiny, then it should agree to the matter being placed before an internationally-recognised adjudicatory body.
It so happens that although there is no formal treaty with our neighbour to the east in relation to a land boundary, there is no doubt about where it runs. At the time Guyana (British Guiana) and Brazil were about to mark their common border in accordance with the King of Italy’s award of 1904, Britain approached the Netherlands about laying down the tri-junction point of the three territories. The Dutch view was that they should take the opportunity to establish the boundary between Guyana and Suriname. The British agreed to this, and eventually a draft treaty was negotiated which among other things, accepted the New River Triangle as part of Guyana. This of course was simply a recognition of the fact that it had been Guyana’s territory going back decades into the nineteenth century. As it was, therefore, the Dutch willingly cooperated in fixing the tri-junction point at the source of the Kutari River in 1936.
While this has been the internationally recognised boundary for a very long time, the treaty was never signed despite Britain’s efforts, because in the first instance the Second World War interrupted proceedings, and after that was over, the Netherlands succumbed to nationalist pressure in Suriname. So the President is right: let them have recourse to an international legal tribunal if they think their case has validity. However, it must be said, they have never wanted to do that.
The question can be asked why the matter is possibly being resuscitated again at this point. The answer is that the odds are this is a case of collusion. It is no coincidence that Suriname has been given our rice quota, for example; this is all about political manoeuvres and has little to do with economic issues. The rice market is an easy way to try and coerce Guyana, and those who believe that if you pat the tiger’s head and say nice words to it, it will give you back your quota, simply do not understand what is going on.
And part of what is going on, as was explained in Stabroek News’ editorial of Friday, is an economic crisis in Venezuela, accompanied by something of a political one. Such circumstances are not conducive to rational decision-making, and tempt governments to seek diversions – in this case, Guyana. The other part is the fact that Venezuela does not want to take the controversy over her contention that the 1899 Award is null and void to the International Court of Justice as this country does; it wants to retain the Good Officer process which has produced no results after more than two decades. As long ago as 1966, a British official commented that Venezuela doesn’t really want a resolution to the controversy – which, it might be added, the ICJ would provide; it wants arrangements which will allow it to continue with its ridiculous claim. That observation still holds true.
So we have President Granger alerting the nation once again to the seriousness of our situation, although whether he is succeeding in his efforts at persuading people of that, remains to be seen. What citizens will have to recognise is that increased diplomatic efforts to counter Venezuela and strengthening our defences will siphon off funds which in ideal circumstances should be deployed elsewhere, such as in education and health. It is yet another price we will have to pay for Venezuela’s rapacity.
