Dear Editor,
In 1823, the United States of America declared the Monroe doctrine, which established for them, security for the territory they held in this hemisphere. There were 4 articles of the Monroe document which mainly sought to stop further colonial expansion by European powers in this hemisphere. The Monroe doctrine stated that (1) the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemis-phere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.
From the very beginning, the
dispute had very little effect on US/UK relationship, even though the British did expand their occupation to include 33,000 square miles after the Monroe declaration in 1823 and after 1841 when they discovered gold west of the Schomburgk Line, which they commissioned in 1841 to delineate the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. But around 1895 a lobbyist for Venezuela, William Lindsay Scruggs, sought to argue that the British behaviour over the issue violated the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and used his influence in Washington, DC to pursue the matter. US President, Grover Cleveland, declared an American interest in the matter. British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, and the British ambassador to Washington, Julian Pauncefote, misjudged the importance the American government placed on the dispute, prolonging the crisis before ultimately accepting the American demand for arbitration of the entire territory since it became clear that the Americans were prepared to go to war to enforce the Monroe doctrine.
To make a very long and complicated story short, the Arbitral Tribunal convened in Paris, France in 1898 consisting of the Chief Justice of Great Britain, the Chief Justice of America and a Russian Judge Friedrich Fromhold Martens. This tribunal delivered its decision in 1899 and which resolved the matter fully, completely and forever. In doing so, they refused to accept the extra 33,000 square miles the British was claiming, but found merit and allowed the British to retain the 30,000 square miles which Venezuela was claiming from the Essequibo river and awarded the western boundary of Guyana according to the Schomburgk line which is roughly the current border between Guyana and Venezuela, but not the additional 33,000 square miles which the tribunal ruled that the British apparently settled after the Schomburgk boundary was set by the 1841 survey.
The Russian judge was a very highly regarded jurist of the time and in 1902 was even a runner up for the Nobel peace prize for averting war between Britain and America for the way in which the border dispute was settled. Since 1899 there existed no border dispute with Guyana and Venezuela, and it was clear that Venezuela had accepted the 1899 award as a final settlement of the border dispute. Even as late as 1941, the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Esteban Gil Borges, agreed that the frontier with British Guiana was well defined and was a closed issue. However, in February 1944, forty-five years after the Arbitral Award, Severo Mallet-Prevost, one of the four lawyers who represented Venezuela before the arbitral tribunal, wrote a memorandum in which, for the first time, he attacked the award on the alleged grounds that it was the result of a political deal between Great Britain and Russia. However, he refused to make the memorandum public and instructed that it should not be published until after his death.
The memorandum was finally publish-ed by his associate, Dr. Otto Schoenrich, in the American Journal of International Law, Volume 43, Number 3, of July 1949 by which time every member of the tribunal had already died and were incapable of repudiating the spurious charges Prevost had made. Prevost’s allegations called into question the competence and integrity of everyone on the Tribunal, including the chief justice of America Melville Weston Fuller and his assistant Justice David J. Brewer who were adjudicating in the matter on behalf of America and Venezuela, the British and the Russian jurists for conspiracy, and the American Chief Justice for incompetence. Now we come to the reason I am writing this.
From 1949 to 1962, 13 years Editor, the British never entertained or even acknowledged these ridiculous allegations made by Prevost, neither did America. But miraculously in 1962, just when the British and the Americans were mulling over what they were going to do about Cheddi Jagan and independence for Guyana, the controversy miraculously reappeared. Editor, this can’t be coincidence; someone influenced and prompted Venezuela to make these spurious claims at that specific time so that the British could put into the conditions of Guyana obtaining independence, a process forcing us to agree to some Good Officer ridiculous nonsense at the UN. Editor, I don’t believe in Santa clause or the Tooth Fairy, the problem is that Venezuela probably never understood the reason for the Good Officer process and took this to mean their claim was legitimate.
Nothing unusual with that, Venezuela, at one time or the other, have had border disputes with all of their neighbours, including Brazil, and even some of the Caribbean islands. It is my contention therefore that this Venezuelan nonsense and the imposition of Proportional Representation as conditions of our independence was a way to maintain control over Burnham and Jagan. Sometime in 1985, I was installing my TV system at the home of one of the Ambassadors to Guyana, I’m not going to say which one, and in our discussion and a drink after the installation, he asked me why Guyana ever agreed to this process in the UN to conciliate such a ridiculous nonsense. Editor, let’s assume that you and I go to court on a matter at the Privy Council in Great Britain, or the Supreme Court of the US and the law lords there, render their decision on the matter, would any legal system anywhere in the world, allow a reopening of the matter 63 years after the matter was settled in court, based on unsubstantiated and unprovable information submitted by a clearly unhinged man?
The bottom line is this, if my hypothesis is correct, to control Burnham and Jagan, one a communist and the other a socialist in this hemisphere and viewed as against US interests, the British, influenced by the Americans, forced Jagan and Burnham, as a condition of independence, to agree to something which has plagued this country since 1964. Editor, they created this monster, and even though they are supporting us now, given that this was probably caused by them in the first place, they could do more to help us, especially the Americans. For decades they, the Venezuelans, have deprived us of developing this country; the Upper Mazaruni Hydro project of the 70’s is only one example and they are still flogging this dead horse because they have a bigger military then we do.
As recently as 2015, I saw the following in Demerara Waves “Brazil’s plans to build hydropower stations in Guyana have apparently hit a brick-wall as a result of Venezuela’s objections, according to Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge.” Anyone wants to guess how much money we could have made from selling electricity to Brazil? Since Burnham’s time they deprived us of this hydro power potential, all of them the British, the Americans and Venezuela. From 1966 to this day Editor, 57 years!! When will enough be enough?
Sincerely,
Tony Vieira
