Dear Editor,
In his contributions to the Sunday Stabroek and Stabroek News on 20th and 28th December respectively, Dr Bertrand Ramcharan has questioned, by way of a full page contribution not shared with the Ministry by the Editor before publication, in surprisingly strong terms, the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding Guyana’s complaint. The sensational headline of the first piece and its tone would, in normal circumstances, be associated with an unfavourable Court decision, which this is not. The legal issues have already been adequately addressed by our Legal Counsel. I am in no position to add to these. It may, however, be of interest to readers to know that the trenchant Venezuelan objections to the Court’s decision do not suggest that they believe that it provides an opportunity for the Court to carve up Guyana’s territory. What is more, Guyana has not requested this and such a demand could hardly emanate from Venezuela, which has been insisting that the Court has no authority or jurisdiction on the matter! It may also be of interest to mention that our Attorneys include lawyers involved in the Chagos case (Mauritius vs the UK) mentioned by Dr Ramcharan on the 20th.
What I would like to respond to is his letter of Dec 28th which is constructive and poses some important questions. Those questions may reflect a general lack of awareness by Guyanese abroad regarding what has been taking place in the Public Diplomacy arena. With that in mind, I offer the following comments/information:
Are, “the Guyanese people, Parliament, and the legal ministry … sufficiently informed or engaged in this matter of vital national interest….. Should the Foreign Ministry publish an information paper for the general public?” For all practical purposes the answer is yes. Sufficiency is a relative term. How often do two people ever agree on anything being sufficient in relation to a critical and sensitive issue such as this? In any case, it should be noted that the Advisory Committee is due to reflect on this matter shortly and decide on what, if anything additional, needs to be done by way of publicity material and approaches. Such reviews would be undertaken routinely and it should be noted that since 2016 a Public Diplomacy Programme has been pursued by the MoFA. That initiative has involved other Ministries, including Regional Development, Indigenous Affairs, Education and NCN, to name a few. UG and the TUC as well as Media Houses have approached the MoFA to be involved and have been accommodated. Personalities interviewed have included former Foreign Ministers Sir Shridath Ramphal and Rashleigh Jackson and key Ministry staff as well as Major General Joe Singh.
In summary the programme has covered:
● Public Service Announcements particularly in 2017
● Music – the commissioning and launch of a song, ‘Guyana Our Own’ performed by Blaze Antonio, composed and written by Marlon Simon. UTube 2018, to complement the popular, ‘Not A Blade of Grass’,
● BBC Spanish language programme and interviews with the UN media, for example.
● Statements such as that made on the occasion of the interception and the attempted boarding of the Ramford Tethys by the Venezuelan Navy.
● Productions, including Journey to Becoming a Diplomat and The Road to Stronger Diplomatic Ties
● Print material such as ‘Beware – the new conquistador (only the Law of Nations can stop Venezuela’s betrayal of Bolivar.’
I might add that in the course of the last fortnight alone my office has been involved in the following interviews:
– 29th December – Kaieteur Radio – Agent
– 23rd Dec – Agent with former Good Offices Facilitator and member of AC, Mr R. Ramkarran SC on Globespan 24
– Dec 22nd – Agent interview with Natalee Legore & Akash Samaroo on ‘Morning Brew’ on CNC3 TV Programme of T&T
– Dec 15th Channel 9, ’A Public Discourse on the Guyana Venezuela Issue: Where are we?’ The Controversy and impending ICJ decision with Youth Panel – broadcast over NCN and a variety of Radio and TV stations.
Questions put by Dr Ramcharan and responses:
1. Should Parliament be briefed and discuss the case before 15 January? – Parliament was updated on the matter last week by the MoFA. The Agent made several statements to the House prior to 2019 (10th June 2015, 11th Feb 2016, for example). Members of the public should be aware that there is a Standing Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and that as MoFA I was called before or offered to address this body the last occasion on which was 8th November 2018. In any case the Case Management effort would not involve decisions that cannot be handled by the team on the basis of information currently available. Beyond that, no Memorial or formal submission is likely to be required of Guyana before next June. The basis for the need for the House to consider the matter by Jan 15 is unclear.
Should the Office of the Attorney-General be involved in the case, which has considerable legal complexities, as will be seen presently. – In looking at the composition of the AC, Cabinet decided in 2016 that the AG Chambers (AGC) would be represented on the team and that the AG should name a nominee. The specific choice of officer and whether they attend AC sessions is a matter for the Cabinet. In the event that specific input is needed from the AGC, the AC would have had no difficulty seeking and obtaining advice.
Dr Ramcharan has called for the team to be: ready to submit pleadings on the following: (i) the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October, 1899; (ii) the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the two countries. (iii) if needed, “evidence and arguments about the course of the land boundary, in order for it to fully resolve the ‘controversy’ “. – I note that this claim is made notwithstanding the explanations of the country’s Counsel. The Advisory Committee is considering the pleadings to be prepared and the Counsel and Advocates will be geared for all relevant eventualities bearing in mind the limited scope of Guyana’s request to the Court.
My office would be only too happy to share this material with Dr Ramcharan.
I should like to add that with a single exception the work of the Government of Guyana on the Controversy in recent times has triggered little by way of comments from the public. They are welcome and most are supportive. The exception has been one newspaper which, for example, rejected our strategy of taking the matter to the Court via the UN’s SG and had persisted in fiercely contending that the UN SG could not properly or legally refer the Controversy to the Court and that, in any case, because Venezuela does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICJ he would not do so. The Government, it was argued, was wrong to have failed to continue to engage the Venezuela in dialogue. I take this opportunity to emphasize that the UNSG’s initiative was intended to be ‘a final effort at dialogue’ to resolve the matter. The newspaper, having been proven wrong by the SG’s decision in Feb 2018 and again in Dec 2020 is yet to acknowledge its erroneous position.
Readers may ask, “The point is?” It is that lawyers, like economists, newspaper publishers and editors, often have disagreements over key issues. This case will no doubt generate many more such disagreements. Our task is to find a consensus over a line and ensure consistency in approach once that line is chosen.
Yours faithfully,
Carl B. Greenidge
Guyana Agent to ICJ
