Dear Editor,
Melinda Janki, for whom I have some respect and with whom I have worked together in the past on aviation matters in Guyana, has, inexplicably, taken me to task by describing a letter I wrote, which was published in the media, on the subject of the confrontation taking place in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians as “bad on history and worse on international relations”. Nothing, however, in her letter relates to nor supports this criticism. In fact, specifically regarding the Israeli and Palestinian confrontation, there is nothing in Ms. Janki’s letter on which I have any fundamental disagreement.
For instance, she writes that “Israel continues to defy international law and inflict carnage on Gaza”. In my letter, I have pointed out that “it is the apparent determination of the Israeli government to destroy every building and murder every Gazan in the name of defending Israel” and that “Israel is now invading Lebanon where Hezbollah is headquartered with the apparent intention of eliminating Hezbollah regardless of the destruction and loss of life involved, similarly to its programme in the Gaza”. Aren’t we saying the same thing?
In my letter, I draw two conclusions, based on facts, which are ignored by Ms. Janki. The first is that, because both Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon “are financed, armed and directed by the militant Muslim leadership of Iran who do not recognize the right of Israel to exist” and because “Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear capability which Israel would like to destroy”, it is reasonable to conclude that “a war between Israel and Iran would result in an international confrontation probably leading to a Third World War”.
The second conclusion I draw and, I repeat, is that all that is happening in the Middle East is “very relevant to the implications it has for Guyana in defence of our own sovereignty against the threat of Maduro’s Venezuela”. It is here that Ms. Janki and I differ. She prides herself publicly as an “International Lawyer”. Then she must know, but chooses to ignore, that the Iranians, who sponsor and support both Hamas and Hezbollah, exercises a military presence in Venezuela in support of Maduro and are not, therefore, necessarily Guyana’s friends when it comes to, as I wrote, the “defence of our own sovereignty against the threat of Maduro’s Venezuela”.
In glaring contrast, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Commonwealth countries, the majority of OAS countries and the CARICOM countries have firmly rejected Venezuela’s claims to Guyana’s Essequibo region. It is pellucid, therefore, where Guyana’s self-interest belong and that Guyana continues to recognize and maintain those friendships in its own national interests.
Melinda Janki is totally wrong when she seeks to blame both the government of former President David Granger and the government of Dr. Mohamed Ali for the threat posed by the Maduro government of Venezuela to the territorial integrity of Guyana’s Essequibo region. In doing so, she displays a surprising lack of comprehension on the matter which is before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with respect to the Essequibo region.
Let me remind her and our readers. We know that the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela was settled as a “Full, Perfect and Final Settlement” by the Arbitral Tribunal Award of October 3rd, 1899. We also know that in 1962, on the eve of the then colony of British Guiana becoming the independent nation of Guyana, the Venezuelan government abandoned the rule of law by abandoning its obligation to the 1899 Award, laying claim to the territory of Guyana’s Essequibo region. This led to the Geneva Agreement between Britain and Venezuela, joined by an independent Guyana in 1966. The Agreement identified the means of resolving the boundary “controversy” which, failing discussions between the two countries, is to be settled by the judicial process.
History recalls that the British government, with the concurrence of the British Guiana government at the time, agreed to have documentation relevant to Venezuela’s claims, examined by experts from the UK, British Guiana and Venezuela at the UN Special Political Committee but, Forbes Burnham, addressing the National Assembly on 12th July, 1968, had this to say: “In making this offer I must make it very clear that it is no sense an offer to engage in substantive talks about revision of the frontier. That we cannot do; for we consider that there is no justification for it”.
Burnham went on to report that “in the view of the governments of the United Kingdom and our British Guiana the work of the experts disclosed that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the Venezuelan contention”. Guyana’s position has never changed in this regard, regardless of which political party is in office and Ms. Janki must know that.
Melinda Janki should also know that, in 2014, all discussions between Venezuela and Guyana on the matter having failed, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in accord with the Geneva Agreement, on 3rd January, 2018, advised Guyana and Venezuela that “having carefully analyzed the developments in the good offices process during the course of 2017” and “significant progress not having been made toward arriving at a full agreement for the solution for the controversy”, he had “chosen the International Court of Justice as the means now to be used for its solution”. On 29th March, 2018, Guyana, as a consequence, filed its application to the Court for the Court to rule on the determination of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award to be binding on both parties. The emphasis is mine.
Both the PPP/C, now in government, and the APNU/AFC, now in Opposition, have agreed to honour the ICJ rule. I have spent this time recalling the historical facts to illustrate that it is pure nonsense, therefore, for Ms. Janki to suggest that anything presented by Guyana’s lawyers at the ICJ have somehow opened the door to “ceding Essequibo to Venezuela if the ICJ set aside the award”. Guyana’s position at the ICJ with respect to the validity of the 1899 Award is perfectly consistent with morality, ‘realpolitik’ and the rule of law and, above all else, the national interest of Guyana and its people. We expect, of course, that the ICJ will rule in favour of Guyana’s position.
Sincerely,
Kit Nascimento