REFORM THE CONTROVERSY GUYANA / VENEZUELA Soon to Come Before ICJ
By Pat Dial
Kaieteur News – The Guyana / Venezuela Debate is again coming before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In Guyana, most of the writings on the Debate have been of a historical and factual nature and this is a good thing as the Guyanese public are not encouraged to shift their attention to areas of debate and debate where factual bases invariably become unclear.
In this offering, we will deviate from this norm and try to answer two questions, which many have been asking since the seizure of two Guyanese fishing boats in Guyanese territorial waters by a Venezuelan navy. The first question is why the Venezuelan public is so convinced that they have a legitimate claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s territory and why their politicians are so bellicose and aggressive about this assertion. And the second question is why President Maduro of Venezuela chose this time to seize the boats when he knew it would alienate the Guyanese population and cause the international community to condemn or disapprove its action leaving Venezuela isolated internationally on the issue.
The answer to the first question began during the Cold War: In the early 1960s, Britain had decided to withdraw from Guyana and allow Colony Independence but it was very likely that the Prime Minister of the newly Independent State would be Dr. Cheddi Jagan, a promising Marxist. US Cold War interests tried to persuade Britain to postpone Guyana’s Independence but all Britain could promise was that it would transfer power to a non-Communist Prime Minister. American Intelligence felt that this British offer needed further insurance and so they devised a plan whereby their Venezuela client would threaten to invade Guyana if there was any possibility of a Marxist Government being placed in Guyana.
The 1899 Arbitration Award settled the borders of Guyana and Venezuela and these boundaries were fully accepted by both sides and the International community. One of the younger lawyers representing Venezuela at the Arbitration, Mallet- Prevost, left a letter, which was not supposed to have been opened until after his death. In that letter, he claimed that the Arbitration Award was the result of an arrangement between Britain and a Russian arbitrator to deprive Venezuela of its rights. After more than half a century, Venezuela, on the basis of a letter after Mallet-Prevost’s death, refused the Arbitration Award and claimed two-thirds of Guyana’s territory. The case that Venezuela used to threaten Guyana was a letter after Mallet-Prevost’s death and this continued after the end of the Cold War, the raison d’etre for the claim.
Most lawyers and historians who took any notice of Mallet-Prevost’s letter dismissed it as historical curiosity or very flimsy evidence to try to upset a long-accepted Arbitration Award. But Venezuelan politicians and the Venezuelan public gave credence and importance to a letter after Mallet-Prevost’s death, which would have been dismissed in the modern world. But Venezuelan politicians and the public still live in the Napoleonic world of the 19th century where territorial defeats were considered acceptable and even heroic. In today’s world, this 19th century ethic has been completely rejected.
The Guyana / Venezuela Debate has been an albatross on the necks of Venezuelan politicians since they used it for one another and their public has been imprisoned by it.
The Venezuelan seizure of the two Guyanese fishing boats and President Maduro’s threatening words to Guyana were supposed to create a national issue, which the Opposition must support. The Opposition therefore falls under the Maduro umbrella and is temporarily neutralized.
A decision by the ICJ would be in the interests of both countries. It would eliminate an ever-present threat to Guyana and would release Venezuelan politicians from incarceration by the Debate and free their international relations from destruction.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.)