Dear Editor
In his letter published in Stabroek News on 13 January 2024, Mr. Nascimento re-stated my position. In his words, ‘it is only Venezuela which is the aggressor and, by its Referendum, threatens the use of force’. Why, then, would Guyana have felt pressured ‘with equivalence’ [Nascimento’s words] to let stand Point 1 of the Joint Declaration of Argyle? ‘Agreed that Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States.’ Shockingly, there is no mention in the Joint Declaration of Argyle of the five-year long processes that resulted in the Arbitral Award of 1899 in which Venezuela participated fully, and was represented by the most powerful jurists in the USA: Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice, and David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Justice Fuller is the predecessor of John G. Roberts Jr., the current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Over a ten-year period (1895-1905), Venezuela participated fully in the serial international processes, backed by the President of the United States, and accepted the ‘full, final and perfect settlement’ of our common border in 1899. Perhaps Mr. Nascimento can explain why Guyana signed the Joint Declaration of Argyle that included Point #4: ‘Noted Venezuela’s assertion of its lack of consent and lack of recognition of the International Court of Justice and its jurisdiction in the border controversy.’ Will that statement not come back to haunt Guyana when the ICJ delivers its ruling? Materially, the cost of Guyana’s legal and diplomatic team at the ICJ hearings is likely absorbing most of the US$ 18 million signature bonus paid by ExxonMobil in 2016. Why then has our government agreed to another bilateral process with Venezuela that will be costly and will go nowhere, and which could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in this expensive process before the ICJ?
Editor, the Joint Declaration of Argyle is a win for President Maduro and the combined Opposition. On 6 September 2021, 9 representatives of the Government of Venezuela (including President Maduro), and 9 representatives of the Unitary Platform of Venezuela [the combined Opposition] signed an Agreement for the ratification and defense of the sovereignty of Venezuela over Guayana Esequiba [Acuerdo para la ratificación y defensa de la soberanía de Venezuela sobre la Guayana Esequiba]; https://mppre.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/acuerdo-para-la-ratificacion-y-defensa-de-la-soberania-de-venezuela-sobre-la-guyana-y-esequiba.pdf. The Venezuelan government and Opposition parties jointly agreed at that meeting in September 2021: (a) Firstly, to ratify their (fictitious) historical and inalienable rights to all territory west of the talweg of the Essequibo River; (b) Secondly, to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; (c) Thirdly, to make a new approach to Guyana to return to direct negotiations on the matter of the common land border, under the auspices of the Geneva Agreement of 1966; (d) Fourthly, to publicize their Agreement widely both at home and abroad.
These four aspirations set out in the Venezuelan internal agreement of 6 September 2021 Agreement are repeated in the Argyle Declaration of 14 December 2023, and in the presence of a large group of international actors who were gathered at the Argyle Airport: Agreed to establish immediately a joint commission of the Foreign Ministers and technical persons from the two States to address matters as mutually agreed… Both States agreed that… CELAC,… the incumbent CARICOM Chairman, and President Lula da Silva of Brazil will remain seized of the matter as Interlocutors. Both States agreed to meet again in Brazil, within the next three months, or at another agreed time, to consider any matter with implications for the territory in dispute, including the above-mentioned update of the joint commission. These are the ‘equivalences’ that should concern all Guyanese, including Nascimento.
On 17 April 2018, Dr. Cedric Joseph pointed out the pointlessness of continuing bilateral meetings in the light of Venezuela’s serial abuses of international and bilateral processes, [re-published in ‘In the Diaspora’, on 18 December 2023]: ‘Yet Venezuela would essay at this very late stage that the controversy be pursued “through diplomatic channels”. How in the context of the experience of the last fifty-two years can bilateral negotiations be continued when Venezuela has crippled every legal and diplomatic undertaking? Or, to what purpose can Venezuela resort to other means of peaceful settlement, or an extension of the enhanced mediation process as proposed, save except to foster more prevarications and stimulate further efforts to undermine the general security of Guyana?’ Mr. Nascimento: Venezuela is no longer essaying. The Venezuelans (Government and Opposition) achieved all that they set out in their 2021 Acuerdo and more through the Joint Declaration of Argyle.
Sincerely,
Janette Bulkan
