The Trail of Diplomacy -- Volume Three: The Guyana-Venezuela Border Issue--United Nations Involvement and Active Bilateral Relations (1982-2015)

By Odeen Ishmael

This volume, the third of a three-part documentary, continues the history of the Guyana-Venezuela border issue from where Volume Two left off. It deals with the involvement of the office of the secretary general of United Nations ever since the termination of the Protocol of Port of Spain in 1982 in the efforts to settle the controversy. While this process did not make any progress as was anticipated, the two countries, despite some intermittent setbacks, maintained a generally cordial relationship that saw an advance in trade relations and political cooperation. The volume also examines the political and economic relations between Guyana and Venezuela since 1982 and the diplomatic activities they undertook to win international support for their respective positions. The authors own diplomatic involvement in the issue is also highlighted.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 21, 2015
• ISBN: 9781503582989

Book preview

UNITED NATIONS INVOLVEMENT

CHAPTER 1

The Search for a Peaceful Settlement

W ITH THE PROTOCOL of Port of Spain having been terminated on June 18, 1982, the Venezuelan government officially proposed to Guyana that direct negotiations should now begin between both governments. The proposal was set out in a letter from the Venezuelan foreign minister, José Alberto Zambrano, to Rashleigh Jackson, his Guyanese counterpart, on July 1, 1982.

01-5.Rashleigh%20Jackson.jpg

Rashleigh Jackson, 1982

LETTER FROM VENEZUELAN FOREIGN MINISTER

The letter stated:

Your Excellency:

I have the honor to address you on the occasion of referring to the expiration on June 18th of the period of twelve years provided for the application of the Protocol of Port of Spain. In conformity with the provisions of the Protocol itself, the application of the Geneva Agreement is consequently resumed and more particularly the procedure stipulated in Article IV of the said agreement.

In conformity with the procedural system provided for in the agreement, the governments of the Republic of Venezuela and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana should now proceed to choose one of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The government of the Republic of Venezuela formally proposes for the consideration of the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana the adoption of the first means of settlement of conflicts provided for in the said Article 33, namely, direct negotiations between the parties.

I await your kind response and avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you the assurances of my highest consideration.

HOSTILE STATEMENTS IN VENEZUELA

One week after, on July 8, Guyana’s National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution condemning Venezuela’s territorial claim and nominated a nine-member all-party advisory committee known as the Parliamentary Committee on the Territorial Integrity of Guyana.

01-8.Jose%20Alberto%20Zambrano%20Velasco.jpg

José Alberto Zambrano

Meanwhile, in Venezuela forces close to the Venezuelan government continued to beat the war drums despite the letter from Zambrano to Guyana’s foreign minister. On July 17, 1982, the commander of the Venezuelan navy, Vice Admiral Rafael Bertorelli, speaking at a news conference in Caracas, stated that Venezuela was not discarding the use of military force as a means of settling the territorial issue. He announced a long list of military hardware, which was on order by the Venezuelan navy. They included the planned purchase of four four-thousand-ton transport ships (valued at US$20 million each), which could be used for amphibious landings, and six Italian frigates, each costing US$50 million and capable of carrying missiles and torpedoes. In referring to the border issue, he said, Venezuela will exhaust all efforts in search of a peaceful solution of the border dispute, but that does not mean it rules out the use of the military road.

Further revelations on the arms buildup by Venezuela were made by El Diario de Caracas on July 20. The newspaper revealed that Defense Minister General Luis Narvaez Churion had confirmed that Venezuela was seeking to buy twenty-five multiple missile systems from Israel.

With the alarm being spread that the planned military buildup by Venezuela was aimed against Guyana, Michael Cooke, the British high commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago, in responding to questions on the border issue advanced by members of the South Trinidad Chamber of Industry and Commerce on July 20, stated:

Britain has a residual and moral obligation to assist Guyana in the event that her sovereignty is invaded by another country … While Britain has the residual obligation to assist, it cannot adjudicate or act on behalf of Guyana unless invited to do so.

CAMPINS’S VISIT TO OAS MEMBERS

01-3.Luis%20Herrera%20Campins.jpg

President Luis Herrera Campins

At the beginning of August 1982, President Herrera Campins began a series of visits to Nicaragua, Jamaica, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic with the aim of explaining his country’s position on the border issue and, according to a report by Financial Times on August 3, whipping up support for the Venezuelan view. The report said that the trips to these Latin American and Caribbean countries formed part of a vigorous diplomatic offensive by Venezuela to promote its claim.

In Jamaica, Campins held discussions with Prime Minister Edward Seaga on August 5, and the two leaders expressed the hope that a practical and peaceful solution could be found to the territorial issue. On the same day, he also met with the leader of the People’s National Party (PNP) and leader of the opposition, Michael Manley, who took the opportunity to reiterate his party’s support for Guyana on the issue and insisted that any settlement must be fashioned to show respect for the concept of territorial integrity.

Meanwhile, in Caracas, sixty-eight persons were sworn in as members of the Essequibo Committee to advise the Venezuelan government on the border issue. They comprised representatives of the nation’s political parties and several high-ranking military persons, including Foreign Minister Zambrano and seven former foreign ministers. Among them were Iribarren Borges, who signed the 1966 Geneva Agreement, and Aristides Calvani, who signed the 1970 Protocol of Port of Spain. Another member was Walter Brandt, a former ambassador to Guyana.

01-2.Edward%20Seaga.jpg

Edward Seaga

NO NEUTRAL STAND BY CARICOM STATES

The August 1982 issue of the monthly Caribbean Contact, in a front-page comment on the territorial claims to Belize and Guyana by Guatemala and Venezuela, respectively, stated categorically that no Caribbean Community (Caricom) state should take any neutral stand on these issues. The paper stated:

We sense that while Caricom governments have been clear in their support of Belize in rejecting Guatemala’s claim to her entire 8,886 square miles of territory, some of them have not been forthright and unequivocal when it comes to backing Guyana in resisting Venezuela’s claim to five-eighths of Guyana’s 83,000 square miles of territory.

We do not wish to cast doubts on the sincerity of any Caricom government when it says that it wishes a peaceful solution to the border rows involving the two Caricom members and OAS members, Venezuela and Guatemala. But we do hope that the financial and other forms of assistance they are receiving from Venezuela will in no way compromise Caricom governments into a neutral position on the Guyana-Venezuela dispute. Like the Belizean people, the Guyanese people will be justified in regarding neutrality on the part of any Caricom government as negative support.

Having greatly contributed to arming Venezuela with F-16 fighters, etc., and not willing to remind either of its strong allies, Guatemala or Venezuela, of the importance in abiding with the decisions of the international tribunals that have ruled on the existing borders between the English-speaking countries and their Spanish-speaking neighbors, the United States cannot honestly plead neutrality on the territorial disputes. In fact, there are reasons for suspicions on where the USA stand on these disputes that are jeopardizing the development of Guyana and Belize and also the peace and stability of this region.

We advocate nothing less than unequivocal unanimity by a Caricom summit, wherever it takes place, in firmly calling on Guatemala and Venezuela to demonstrate respect for the inherited international borders of Belize and Guyana and appreciation for the sovereignty of these two Caricom states. To merely call for a peaceful resolution of the territorial disputes and to signal, for whatever reason, and however vaguely, neutrality to either Guatemala or Venezuela, will not be friendly to either of the Caricom partners facing territorial aggression.

THE COLOMBIAN DECLARATION

A declaration calling for the peaceful resolution of all disputes and respect for the territorial integrity of Latin American and Caribbean nations was signed during the first week of August in Bogota, Colombia, on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Colombian president, Belisario Betancur. The declaration stressed that prompt and peaceful settlement must be sought to the conflicts and controversies in the region. It was signed by heads of states and representatives of various Latin American and Caribbean governments attending the inauguration ceremony. Among the signatories were President Campins of Venezuela and Guyana’s foreign minister Rashleigh Jackson who represented President Forbes Burnham at the inauguration.

Among the dignitaries attending the inauguration ceremony was Vice President George Bush of the United States, to whom Jackson explained Guyana’s stand on the border issue with Venezuela.

GUYANA’S REPLY TO VENEZUELA’S PROPOSAL

On August 20, 1982, the Guyanese government officially responded to the July 1 letter of the Venezuelan foreign minister. A response was handed to Csisky Rodriguez, the Venezuelan chargé d’affaires of the Venezuelan embassy in Georgetown, by Foreign Minister Jackson. It stated:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter to me of July 1, 1982 in which you referred to the resumption of operation of the procedure stipulated in Article IV of the Geneva Agreement and advised that the government of the Republic of Venezuela was now formally proposing for the consideration of the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana the adoption of the first means of peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, namely, direct negotiations between the parties.

Having given the most careful consideration to the proposal of the government of the Republic of Venezuela for the adoption of negotiation as the means of settlement, the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana finds itself unable to accept the proposal.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana accordingly hereby proposes for the consideration of the government of the Republic of Venezuela the adoption of judicial settlement as the means of settlement to be chosen from among those provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana strongly urges the desirability of judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice and will be grateful for its acceptance by the government of the Republic of Venezuela…

On the day after the letter was issued, unofficial reports from Caracas claimed that Venezuela was not interested in resolving the issue by judicial settlement. An Inter Press Service (IPS) report on August 21 quoted Foreign Minister Zambrano as saying that the Guyanese proposals did not objectively correspond with the letter and spirit of the Geneva Agreement, which, he contended, the two countries selected in 1966 as the adequate political and judicial framework for resolving the matter. He also stated that he found it incomprehensible that such an open invitation as Venezuela’s formula for negotiations drew Guyana’s proposals for judicial means.

Commenting on the IPS report, Jackson, according to the Guyana Chronicle of August 26, said that he was surprised and deeply disturbed by the reactions coming from Venezuelan sources. He noted that clarity of thought, always an important requirement in the conduct of inter-state relations, is even more necessary at this stage to avoid perpetuating or creating confusion and misunderstanding. He explained that the disposition of the Guyanese government to talk with the Venezuelan government was demonstrated by the acceptance by President Forbes Burnham of an invitation to visit Venezuela in 1981.

Jackson further explained:

We have consistently maintained a willingness to talk to Venezuela about our relations during the period of the Protocol of Port of Spain. This position of the government of Guyana has been oft-times repeated by the Comrade President and other spokesmen.

Indeed this position was confirmed by me to Dr. Zambrano when I met him in May last year during the conference on Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries (ECDC) in Venezuela which he chaired, as well as to Ambassador Garavini on several occasions up to February 4 this year when specific ideas were discussed with him. My meetings with the foreign minister and his ambassador last year and this year were talks.

Jackson explained that it was a firm policy of his government to develop normal and friendly relations with other states and not to eschew dialogue. He added that to confuse such a willingness to talk with the exercise, in accordance with Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, of a specific choice of one of the means of peaceful settlement provided by Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations was absurd. He pointed out, Negotiation after all is only one of the means specified in that article.

Commenting on Zambrano’s statement that Guyana’s choice was incomprehensible, Jackson stated:

Can Dr. Zambrano say whether Guyana is entitled to choose judicial settlement under the provisions of the Geneva Agreement? The government of Venezuela is entitled to propose negotiation. Equally, the government of Guyana is entitled to propose judicial settlement. The only thing incomprehensible is Dr. Zambrano’s reaction.

APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

On August 25, Guyana’s National Assembly, acting on a resolution passed on July 8, 1982, condemning Venezuela’s territorial claim, nominated a nine of its members to the parliamentary committee on the territorial integrity of Guyana. Dr. Ptolemy Reid, the prime minister, told the assembly that the nine members were identified after consultation and agreement with the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Five were nominated from the People’s National Congress (PNC), three from the PPP and one from the United Force (UF). Cammie Ramsaroop, the vice president for the ruling PNC and state relations, was named as chairman of the committee. Other PNC nominees were Foreign Minister Rashleigh Jackson, Energy and Mines Minister Hubert Jack, P. Fredericks, and K. V. Jairam. The PPP members were Ram Karran, Reepu Daman Persaud, and Clinton Collymore. The lone UF nominee was its leader, Marcellus Fielden-Singh.

RESPONSE FROM VENEZUELAN FOREIGN MINISTER

The official Venezuelan reply to Guyana’s proposal was handed to the country’s ambassador in Caracas, Rudolph Collins, by Foreign Minister Zambrano on August 30. The letter written to Jackson stated:

I have the honor of referring to your note of August 20, 1982 by which the government of Guyana responded to the note of the Venezuelan government dated July 2, 1982 [sic].

In its note the government of Guyana indicated it could not accept the Venezuelan proposal to choose negotiations as a means of seeking a satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the outstanding territorial controversy and proposed instead to submit the matter to judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice.

The government of Venezuela notes that a friendly invitation to negotiate has once again received a response which does not even suggest a willingness to discuss or even to listen. Venezuela therefore considers it necessary to point out that full compliance with the Geneva Agreement is impossible where no consideration is given to negotiation as a means of resolving the substantive question and is of the opinion that the counter proposal of the government of Guyana represents a step away from the fulfillment of the objective of this treaty.

The Geneva Agreement, in effect, expressly states that its objective is to examine the existing controversy in respect of the boundary between Venezuela and Guyana (formerly British Guiana) so that the controversy could be resolved in a friendly manner acceptable to both parties. Article I of the Geneva Agreement also defines the objectives which its signatories set themselves as well as the very nature of this international instrument by stipulating that the parties were obliged to seek satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the controversy.

From this perspective and with the aim of fulfilling its obligations, Venezuela has maintained from the inception of the work of the Mixed Commission that the solution of the controversy under the terms of the Geneva Agreement must meet two conditions: firstly, it must be of a practical nature, that is, not theoretical, speculative or exclusively juridical, and, secondly, it must be acceptable to both parties.

As conceived under the Geneva Agreement, the settlement of the controversy must take account of the principles of equity, natural justice and ethics. Venezuela has therefore consistently maintained a position of willingness to consider any means capable of achieving a practical solution which is acceptable to both parties, in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Agreement. In this sense, it maintains its readiness to examine not only aspects which are exclusively linked to the territorial controversy per se, but also areas of our total bilateral relations which could contribute to a solution of the problems referred to above.

Before the signing of the Geneva Agreement and even more so after its signing, we strongly urged negotiation as a means of solution of the present controversy because only by recourse to diplomatic means can a just and practical settlement be achieved which would be acceptable and satisfactory to both parties.

It must therefore be concluded that the means proposed by the government of Guyana is not suited to the aims and objectives of the Geneva Agreement.

Consequent upon all the above, I therefore wish to reiterate on behalf of the government of Venezuela the invitation to negotiate on the widest of bases possible in the search for a satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the controversy.

VENEZUELAN FOREIGN MINISTER’S VISIT TO BRAZIL

On September 1, the Venezuelan foreign minister left for Brazil to discuss with that country’s officials his country’s position on the claim to Guyana’s Essequibo region. During his two-day visit, he held discussions with Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, the Brazilian foreign minister.

Just before Zambrano left for his Brazilian visit, according to the September 2 issue of the Daily Journal, the Caracas English-language newspaper, he predicted that a method of solving the issue would have to be selected by the UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar. On the other hand, according to the same newspaper, Rudolph Collins, Guyana’s ambassador to Caracas, told the Latin American Economic System (SELA) annual general assembly, which was being held in the Venezuelan capital, that since the Geneva Agreement specified a number of measures to find a satisfactory solution, the Venezuelan government exercised the right to propose negotiations as one of the methods. However, he added, We, examining the Venezuelan proposal, believe that the best way to resolve the controversy is through the International Court of Justice.

01-4.Perez%20de%20Cuellar.jpg

Perez de Cuellar

Meanwhile, at the end of his visit to Brazil, Zambrano, according to an Associated Press dispatch on September 3, accused Guyana of preparing for war while blaming Venezuela for using aggression. On the same day, in another Associated Press report from Caracas, the former Venezuelan president, Rafael Caldera—by then a declared candidate of COPEI for the December 1983 presidential election—insisted that it would be a tragic error if Venezuela used military force to settle the territorial issue unless there were significant changes in international conditions.

MEETINGS AT THE UN

Early in September 1982, Noel Sinclair, Guyana’s permanent representative at the UN, held talks with UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar on the border issue. Shortly after—on September 6—the Venezuelan foreign minister, who was on a visit to the USA, also met with the secretary general to update him on his country’s position. Zambrano told him that negotiation must be a first step to the resolution of the crisis and claimed that the letter and spirit of the Geneva Agreement insisted upon this.

PROVOCATIONS IN GUYANA’S BORDER REGION

Meanwhile, in the border region itself, two provocative incidents occurred during the beginning of September. On September 3, a Venezuelan helicopter, manned by military personnel, approached Guyanese territory from a westerly direction and attempted to land at the Baramita airstrip in the North West District. Guyanese soldiers fired a warning burst of several rounds, and the helicopter was forced to fly away.

01-6.Noel%20Sinclair.jpg

Noel Sinclair

According to Guyana’s foreign affairs ministry, the helicopter attempted to land at two other places in Guyanese territory but was prevented from doing so. On the afternoon of September 5, Venezuelan soldiers dressed in camouflage uniforms attempted to land at a military observation post on Guyanese territory near the border settlement of Eteringbang on the Cuyuni River, but after warning shots were fired by the Guyanese soldiers, the Venezuelans withdrew.

The Guyanese ministry of foreign affairs, as a result, on September 7 handed a protest note over these incidents to Dr. Sadio Garavini, the Venezuelan ambassador.

On the same day, Francisco Paproni, the acting director of the Venezuelan foreign ministry, admitted that a Venezuelan helicopter overflew Guyana’s territory. He stated (according to the Guyana Chronicle of September 14) that a civilian helicopter was transporting a sick national guard and that experts in aviation affirm that from Boniche (in Venezuela), the point where the helicopter took off, aircraft are obliged to overfly the Essequibo on account of the wind direction.

However, on September 8, the Venezuelan acting foreign minister, Garcia Bustillos, denied that any of the incidents mentioned in the protest occurred. He claimed (as also reported in the Guyana Chronicle of September 14) that the people of Venezuela must know that there has been for a long time an orchestrated campaign to present us as the aggressor country.

EXPECTED INTERVENTION OF UN SECRETARY GENERAL

On September 13, 1982, the nine-member parliamentary committee on the territorial integrity of Guyana held its first meeting when it discussed the diplomatic advances made by Guyana.

On September 18, three months after the ending of the Protocol of Port of Spain, no mutual agreement on solving the issue was arrived at by Guyana and Venezuela. Accordingly, both countries were now expected to refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they should both agree. If an agreement was not reached on which appropriate international organ the question should be referred to, then the secretary general of the United Nations, according to the terms of the Geneva Agreement, would eventually be requested by both parties to choose a method of peaceful settlement as stated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, i.e., judicial, negotiation, fact-finding, inquiry, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, or resort to regional agencies or UN bodies.

Just the day before, Noel Sinclair, Guyana’s permanent representative at the UN, had declared that his government would place no restrictions on the secretary general or specify a time limit for his efforts.

LETTER FROM GUYANA TO VENEZUELA

On September 19, 1982, the Guyanese government officially responded to the Venezuelan letter of August 30, which rejected Guyana’s proposal for a judicial settlement. The response was in the form of a letter from the Guyanese foreign minister to his Venezuelan counterpart. It stated:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter to me of August 30, 1982, in response to mine of August 20, 1982, in which pursuant to Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana proposed for the consideration of the government of the Republic of Venezuela the adoption of judicial settlement as the means of settlement to be chosen among those provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has noted with care the arguments advanced by the government of the Republic of Venezuela for reiterating its preference for negotiation as the means of peaceful settlement of the controversy which, as stated on the Geneva Agreement, has arisen as the result of the Venezuelan contention that the arbitral award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void. The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has not, however, been persuaded to accept the correctness of those arguments or the conclusions in which they issue to the effect that the means proposed by the Cooperative Republic is not suited to the aims and objectives of the Geneva Agreement and represents a step away from the fulfillment of the objectives of this treaty.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is disappointed with so summary, peremptory and seemingly irrevocable a dismissal of one of the means of peaceful settlement contemplated by Article IV of the Geneva Agreement through its clear requirement for a selection to be made of one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, which explicitly include both negotiation and judicial settlement. The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana expects the government of the Republic of Venezuela to respect the right of the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana to propose judicial settlement and to reiterate that proposal.

As your letter of August 20 demonstrates no evidence of recognition of that right, the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana earnestly requests the government of the Republic of Venezuela to reconsider the former’s proposal for judicial settlement as both properly made under Article IV of the Geneva Agreement and well adapted to deal with the controversy in an independent, impartial and objective manner.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana finds incomprehensible the surprising attempt by the government of the Republic of Venezuela to portray the fact that the former has proposed judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice (as it was unquestionably entitled to do under the Geneva Agreement) as evidence of unwillingness to discuss or at least to listen.

Altogether, apart from the Geneva Agreement, the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is and always has been willing to engage in dialogue with the government of the Republic of Venezuela on all matters of mutual interest. The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana will therefore be willing to embark with the government of the Republic of Venezuela on diplomatic discussions on all matters of relevance to the promotion of understanding, cooperation and peace between our two neighboring countries.

The government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana however considers that any such diplomatic discussions must be a separate and distinct matter from the present question, which, as was formally raised in your letter to me on July 1, 1982 (not July 2, 1982, as mentioned in your letter of August 30) is limited to the selection of one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for under Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

ZAMBRANO’S LETTER TO JACKSON

On the same day, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Zambrano wrote to Jackson, stating that since the three-month period had elapsed, during which the two sides could not reach an agreement on the method of peaceful settlement that should be applied, the Venezuelan government intended to refer the issue to the UN secretary general and suggested that Guyana should do the same. The letter stated

Because the three-month lapse foreseen in Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement has passed without having been possible to agree upon one of the means of peaceful solution of controversies foreseen in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, it becomes necessary to apply the other provisions of the said paragraph.

The government of Venezuela has arrived at the conviction that the international organ most appropriate to choose a means of settlement is the secretary general of the United Nations, who accepted this responsibility by note of April 4, 1966, signed by U Thant, and whose actuation was clearly conveyed by the parties in the said text of the Geneva Agreement.

In consequence, the government of Venezuela has proposed to take the matter to the attention of the secretary general and would see with pleasure that the government of Guyana make on its part, a similar gesture.

EVENTS AT THE UN

On September 20, 1982, at a press conference to discuss the agenda of the UN General Assembly which was expected to convene on the following day, Secretary General Perez de Cuellar stated that he was ready to use all the resources at his disposal to settle the Guyana-Venezuela controversy. He said that the problem of the two countries provided an opportunity for both his office and the UN Security Council to assist them in overcoming their differences. He added that he was in contact with both governments to consider the ways of preventing a conflict and noted a genuine desire on both sides to find a just and peaceful solution.

The Venezuelan foreign minister on September 28, in an address to the UN General Assembly, characterized the 1899 award as an extraordinary farce from a so-called court of arbitration without Venezuelan judges and lawyers. He maintained that the Venezuelan claims were based not on territorial ambitions or the covetousness for the riches of others but on the necessity of correcting a historical error perpetrated against it.

In an immediate response, Noel Sinclair, Guyana’s permanent representative to the UN, told reporters that the absence of Venezuelan judges or lawyers on the tribunal came about because Venezuela decided to have its interests represented by US jurists since it was confident that those jurists would represent Venezuela’s interests well. Sinclair said that he would reply with a note to the Venezuelan foreign minister to correct the latter’s misrepresentations.

Sinclair himself on October 5, 1982, addressed the General Assembly and rebutted the Venezuelan foreign minister’s allegations concerning the border issue. He accused Zambrano of giving an account full of lies to the General Assembly and added:

It is untrue that Venezuela has never used aggression outside its border. Venezuela forcefully took over the Guyanese side of Ankoko Island soon after the Geneva Agreement was signed in 1966 … Guyana does not judge the peaceful intentions of Venezuela by what it says. The Venezuela that we know is the one which, with its armed forces, repeatedly violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana …

Venezuela has repeatedly used economic pressure to prevent companies and banks from dealing with Guyana.

In relation to the arbitral award of 1899, Sinclair stated:

Venezuela agreed freely to the 1899 arbitration, promised to follow what was decided, and then signed the decision when the result was known. This was the border accepted by Venezuela for over half a century, until reaffirming its claim in the 1960s. It takes little imagination to realize why Venezuela does not want the dispute to be arbitrated …

Guyana rejects any imputation that it does not want to negotiate. Guyana followed the Geneva accord as closely as Venezuela when it suggested that the two countries submit the dispute to arbitration, instead of having direct negotiation.

BURNHAM’S VISIT TO BRAZIL

On September 30, 1982, President Burnham began a six-day visit to Brazil where he explained the position of his government on the border issue to Brazilian officials. While visiting Rio de Janeiro, he denounced Venezuela as expansionist and announced that Guyana would purchase military equipment from Brazil. He also pointed out that while Guyana had no military agreements with Britain, if there is to be an armed confrontation … anyone who is prepared to help us … we would accept. However, he hoped for a peaceful solution to the controversy.

On October 5, the last day of his visit, Burnham, in commenting on Venezuela’s application made the week before to join the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), insisted that the application for full membership should be opposed. He explained that Venezuela’s action in voting in the UN General Assembly in 1981 against the resolution on the noninterference of countries in the internal affairs of other countries should cause its application to be rejected. He noted that Venezuela was the only third-world country that voted against the noninterference resolution.

GUYANA’S REPLY TO VENEZUELA

Dr. Mohamed Shahabuddeen

In a reply on October 8, 1982, to Zambrano’s letter of September 19, Dr. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Guyana’s attorney general and acting foreign minister, noted that the currently applicable provisions of Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement provided that the governments of Guyana and Venezuela should refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agreed or, failing agreement on this point, to the secretary general of the UN.

The letter stated that while Guyana held the highest respect for the UN secretary general, it would, however, be concerned to invite the secretary general to assume the role envisaged for him at the proper stage so as to ensure that he is unembarrassed by any reasonable doubt as to whether he is competent to act under the Geneva Agreement.

01-1.Mohamed%20Shahabuddeeen.jpg

Dr. Mohamed Shahabuddeen

The UN secretary general, the letter continued, would be competent to act in circumstances in which the two governments have failed to agree on an appropriate international organ under the first alternative, an event which has not yet occurred. It was pointed out further that the two governments had not yet embarked on any steps to reach agreement on an international organ as contemplated in the first alternative. For these reasons, Guyana was of the view that the proposal of Venezuela at this stage was premature and inadmissible.

The letter concluded that Guyana was ready to endeavor to reach an agreement with Venezuela on an international organ, as stipulated by the Geneva Agreement, and suggested that an appropriate organ would be the UN General Assembly.

MEETING OF THE NON-ALIGNED FOREIGN MINISTERS

The foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) met in New York on October 9, 1982, to discuss a number of matters including that of Venezuela’s application to become a full member of the organization. At that meeting, Guyana, through Foreign Minister Jackson, expressed its objection to the application and explained that its nonsupport arose from some of the fundamental principles of the NAM. Jackson listed these principles to which Guyana was attaching such importance as: (1) the use or threat of force for the achievement of political objectives; (2) noninterference in the internal affairs of states; (3) the sanctity of treaties; (4) territorial integrity; (5) the inviolability or legally established frontiers; and (6) the right of all states, especially developing ones, to secure their economic and social development.

Jackson also drew the meeting’s attention to Venezuela’s claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s territory and the accompanying aggression through its occupation of Guyana’s half of Ankoko Island in 1966; the Leoni decree of 1968, which purported to annex waters of the coast of Essequibo; and the opposition to the building and World Bank financing of the Mazaruni hydro-project. He pointed out that such actions were inconsistent with the principles of the NAM and the efforts initiated from the beginning to create conditions, which would promote rather than hinder the economic development of member nations.

Attention was also drawn to the fact that Venezuela was the only third-world country that, in 1981 in the UN General Assembly, voted against the declaration that opposed intervention and interference in the affairs of states. Jackson explained:

This action by Venezuela caused deep concern in Guyana and must have disappointed many members of this movement. It was surely a matter of great significance to each one of us that Venezuela has chosen in the public forum of the General Assembly to stand aside from what was a clear and specific instruction from her head since they recognized the real threat and danger to small countries.

He added that Venezuela’s reservation on some of the provisions of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea was possibly based on its maritime ambitions to the waters of Guyana’s Essequibo region. He concluded:

We desire nothing but peace and friendship with Venezuela but in seeking to achieve these ends, the need to be consistent with the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and to promote the security and the development of our country must ever be present …

I repeat … that Guyana remains willing to reach an accommodation with Venezuela on outstanding matters. However, it would be difficult for us to set aside our reservations at this stage though we feel confident that with goodwill on all sides, this can in time be achieved.

Venezuela’s application, which was considered in detail by the foreign ministers, was eventually referred to the summit (of the NAM) to be held in New Delhi in March 1983, for a final decision to be made.

At the end of the meeting, the Venezuelan foreign minister accused Guyana of trying to blackmail his country by setting conditions for Venezuela’s acceptance as a full member of the NAM. Guyana immediately rejected this accusation.

Two days later, on October 11, in an address to the UN General Assembly, Jackson stated that the Venezuelan claim to the western part of Essequibo was an unjustified attempt to quench a thirst for land and mineral resources. In an extensive speech, in which he dedicated a great part on the history of the border controversy, he refuted arguments presented earlier to the General Assembly by his Venezuelan counterpart.

He said that Zambrano’s earlier presentation contained exaggerated distortions and at the same time was biased and selective in outlining the history of the issue. Jackson also proposed three alternatives, the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, and the UN Security Council, any of which could choose the peaceful means of resolving the issue. However, he added, Guyana was choosing the General Assembly.

MEETING OF VENEZUELAN ADVISORY COMMISSION

In Caracas, the Venezuelan national advisory commission on the territorial claim met on October 12, 1982, to consider the latest development related to the border issue. The meeting also discussed the country’s failure to gain full membership of the NAM. The commission felt that the failure to obtain full membership of the movement during the meeting of the NAM’s foreign ministers was a humiliating defeat spearheaded by Guyana.

On the following day, José Vicente Rangel of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), one of the candidates for the 1983 presidential elections, contended that Venezuela was isolated and without allies. He was quoted by IPS as saying that Colombia and Brazil are not with us and that the English-speaking Caribbean countries were backing Guyana.

01-7.Jose%20Vicente%20Rangel.jpg

José Vincente Rangel

ZAMBRANO’S LETTER TO JACKSON

On October 15, 1982, Zambrano wrote to Jackson:

I have the honor of addressing Your Excellency on the occasion of referring to your note of October 8, 1982, as well as the propositions you have formulated in your speech of October 11, 1982, at the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization of which we did not have any knowledge through the ordinary diplomatic channel. With this note the government of Venezuela reiterates its aspiration of maintaining the communication between the parties, for the treatment of this matter, at the level of bilateral relations.

As manifested to Your Excellency in my note dated September 19, 1982, the government of Venezuela has arrived at the conviction that, for the fulfillment of what is foreseen in Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement, the most appropriate organ is the secretary general of the United Nations Organization.

The government of Venezuela has taken note of the position of the government of Guyana in that which is expressed in your communication of October 8, 1982, as well as in the proposition contained in your speech before the General Assembly.

Your Excellency has proposed three alternatives for the selection of an appropriate international organ which will choose one of the means of peaceful solution of controversies, as foreseen in Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement, and which would be, according to your proposition, the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly or the Security Council of the United Nations Organization.

After having analyzed carefully these alternatives, the government