New twist on border controversy

Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge has attempted to introduce a new element into the prevailing stand-off on the border controversy precipitated by Venezuela in 1962, which has had a chequered history. The Geneva Agreement (1966) mandated a “Mixed Commission” of Guyanese and Venezuelan representatives to resolve the controversy. They met between 1966 and 1970, but became embroiled in the fundamental disagreement that still prevails today.

The Guyanese insisted the Venezuelans prove their contention of “nullity” of the 1899 Award, while the Venezuelans maintained it was the revision of the border that must be undertaken. Before the Mixed Commission mechanism was abandoned in 1970, there were a series of proposals and counter-proposals between Guyana and Venezuela to effectuate the “practical settlement” of the controversy mandated by the Geneva Agreement.

The Venezuelans floated “arbitration”, but this was rejected by Guyana since Venezuela had not recognised the “full and final” settlement of 1899. What would be different this time, they asked. Guyana countered by proposing that the question of arbitral nullity be submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but this was rejected by the Venezuelans. Meeting in Trinidad with the intervention of Prime Minister Eric Williams, the “Protocol of Port of Spain” was signed.

It offered a moratorium on all claims by either side for a period of 12 years to allow for the development of friendlier relations between the two countries. As the end of the Protocol was approaching in 1981, Venezuela objected to a hydroelectric project in the Mazaruni and by the end of the year in the ensuing deterioration of relations between the two countries, cancelled the protocol in 1982.

Venezuela then proposed direct negotiations between the two countries which were eventually rejected by Guyana, which again proposed a juridical recourse. It has been pointed out, however, that in this period, Venezuela alluded to a passage to the Atlantic as a possible quid pro quo for abandoning its controversial claim which never was consummated. Venezuela then proposed the matter be submitted to the United Nations Secretary General and after initially demurring, Guyana agreed in March 1983.

On March 1, 1985, President Burnham, interviewed by a Venezuelan reporter who asked, “But right now the question is being raised – that same kind of proposals that were raised under the Perez Government – of a solution; that is, Venezuela’s exit to the Atlantic.” Burnham answered, “We can discuss it. But having an entry into the Caribbean is quite different from owning the land bordering the Caribbean.” Burnham was thus willing to consider Venezuela having an entrance to the Atlantic as a “practical solution” to the controversy.

Burnham’s successor President Desmond Hoyte continued friendly relations with Venezuela and even considered “joint development” on some projects in Essequibo – these, however, would not include any cession of sovereignty to Venezuela. He also raised the possibility of there being an “exchange of land”. In March 1989, on a visit to Venezuela, Hoyte agreed to a proposal from Venezuelan President Carlos Perez for a former Caricom Secretary General Alister McIntyre to be appointed the “Good Officer” of the UN Secretary General.

And there the process languished until earlier this year when the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government indicated it would be seeking a juridical option of the Geneva Agreement. The new A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Government accepted this route.

In the penumbra of a statement by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo that Guyana must always be prepared to have several options so as to ensure the UN SG had diplomatic room to manoeuvre, President Granger demurred. Foreign Affairs Minister Greenidge then announced that Guyana would ask the UN SG to submit the controversy to the ICJ for an “advisory opinion”.

While permitted, the SG can only do so, if requested by one of five specific organs of the UN or one of 16 specific agencies. Mr Greenidge did not state whether he has received this sponsorship. The controversy is still in play with no end in sight.