Dear Editor,
Paragraph 9 in its current iteration should not have been accepted by Guyana. In the first place as far as Guyanese are concerned, there is no “territory in dispute” and to allow such a description, such verbiage, places Guyana at a distinct disadvantage.
The danger of having acquiesced to such language apart, the other problem with paragraph 9 is inherent in the words,
“Any matter with implications for the territory in dispute”. This is far too wide and allows too much latitude for interpretations that could go against Guyana’s interests.
For example, it could be argued that the granting of a mining license in the Essequibo by Guyana, is a “matter with implications for the territory in dispute” and could therefore trigger the meeting clause. Does this mean that if the Government of Guyana wants to grant a mining license next week, Venezuela can trigger this clause and call Guyana to the table, effectively forcing consultation on our development of the Essequibo? God forbid!
I doubt whether that was the intended result (at least as far as Guyana is concerned) but the language used allows for such a contention.
Furthermore, the pressing priorities of the use of force and a commitment to de-escalation and the preservation of peace are already expressly addressed in the declaration (paras 1,3,5,6). Paragraph 7 already establishes a mechanism to activate the Declaration going forward and establishes a three- month reporting requirement. The other paragraphs are simply a restatement of the respective positions held by Guyana and Venezuela going into this meeting.
Paragraph 9 therefore, if deemed at all necessary, could have simply read;
“Both States agreed to meet again in Brazil, within the next three months, or at another agreed time, to consider the above-mentioned update of the joint commission and any matter which may arise in relation to this Joint Declaration”.
Yours faithfully,
Hon. 𝐀𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐳𝐚 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐫,
𝐌𝐏 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟
𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬
