Dear Editor,
The announcement that President Ali will be travelling to St. Vincent and the Grenadines for a meeting with President Maduro of Venezuela, appears to have surprised many Guyanese. News of the meeting began circulating by way of a leaked copy of a letter by the Vincentian Prime Minister Mr. Ralph Gonsalves to the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela. President Ali has consistently asserted that the border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela is before the International Court of Justice, and confidently predicted that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), would rule in Guyana’s favour. He advocates that everyone should await the ruling, while insisting that Guyana’s development cannot be put on pause, and that the rule of law must prevail. The ICJ has already made two preliminary rulings on the matter. It rejected Venezuela’s claim that the ICJ has no jurisdiction and in the second, on the matter of the 3rd December Referendum in Venezuela, it called on Venezuela to “refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails”.
It was disappointing that the ICJ used what appears to have been excessively neutral language to describe Essequibo, speaking of “dispute” rather than “controversy”, and “administration and control” – a term more descriptive of a holding situation in a protectorate, rather than sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries.
As Anil Nandlall, the Attorney General said at a recent Bar Association forum, the Court was probably bending over to display its impartiality and to avoid any accusation of bias.
Overall, the Court delivered sound judgments, a bit too slowly in my view, but while it can pronounce, it cannot enforce. There is an example some years ago of the USA’s refusal to abide by a ruling of the Court, while more recently, judges of Russian and Chinese nationalities dissented in an otherwise unanimous ruling against Russia.
Commendably, Guyana has received support, if only lukewarm, from regional, hemispheric and international communities. CARICOM, of which Guyana is a founding member, and the Community of States of Latin America, (CELAC) of which both Venezuela and Guyana are members, have led the initiative for Thursday’s meeting. Based on a statement by Gonsalves to the Vincentian media, he had a visit from a top Venezuelan official prior to the meeting which suggests that that country would have had some role in getting support for the meeting. Yet, it would have been difficult for President Ali to decline the invitation. Perhaps in response to some disquiet expressed by sections of the Guyanese population following the announcement, President Ali has again assured the nation that the border controversy is not on the agenda. What he did not say however, is what is on the agenda, or what his own proposals are. Such meetings should have clear ground rules and desired outcomes, lest they end in disaster.
It is unclear what advice President Ali has taken, and who will comprise the Guyana team to meet with the Venezuelan delegation. In a letter in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek, commentator Ravi Dev wrote that VP Jagdeo appears to favour a military base in Guyana “to protect our national interest”, clearly a reference to the USA. I seriously doubt that that will go down well with Gonsalves, President Lula or with Maduro. A long time ago, Guyana could boast of one of the best teams of diplomats in the Foreign Affairs Ministry among world countries, and under President Burnham, Guyana hosted a meeting of the leaders of the Non-Aligned countries of the world. Regrettably, the role and strength of foreign affairs have been downgraded since then, depriving President Ali of the quality of support the situation demands, and which cannot be provided by either the Foreign Secretary, or the Foreign Minister. If diplomacy is to compensate for any other weakness in our relations with Venezuela, it needs to be handled capably, competently and delicately.
Guyanese of all political stripes have come out totally in defence of the country’s sovereignty and the integrity of its territory. To his credit, President Ali has engaged the Guyanese populace, but mainly in speaking to, rather than with them. He is yet to consult with the National Assembly, and on the issue of the St. Vincent meeting, he notified the Leader of the Opposition, rather than consulted with him. Our semi-dormant National Assembly is meeting today, and there was no reason or urgency why President Ali had to respond to the invitation with such urgency, and without consulting with the people’s representatives. It is a fine line to distinguish between the border controversy, while discussing the tensions caused by Venezuela arising out of that controversy. Guyanese will be hoping that nothing the President does in St. Vincent will yield a single concession to Venezuela or contribute to an escalation of tensions between our countries, or cause Guyana the loss of any diplomatic support. He cannot and must not.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
