Venezuela border controversy: No effort to be spared in resisting Venezuela’s intimidation tactics – Govt, Opposition

…unite on Guyana’s sovereignty

As Venezuela’s sabre-rattling continues, President Dr Irfaan Ali and senior members of his Cabinet on Tuesday met with Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton and members of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) parliamentary Opposition at the Office of the President to discuss the Bolivarian Republic’s recent acts of aggression.
In a joint statement, the Guyana’s Government and Opposition revealed that they are both united against Venezuela’s intimidation tactics, which include a statement Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro-led Government released on Tuesday, accusing Guyana of refusing diplomatic dialogue.
“In discussing the latest actions by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in pursuit of its spurious claim to the Essequibo territory of Guyana, President Ali and Opposition Leader Mr Norton from the outset, agreed that Guyana’s sovereignty is of paramount importance and is a matter on which the Guyanese people are all completely united,” the joint statement said.
“To this end, they condemned the flagrant violation of the rule of law by Venezuela and agreed that no effort should be spared to resist that country’s persistent endeavours to undermine Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The two sides also agreed on the importance of a vigorous and comprehensive public relations programme, as well as a robust and proactive diplomatic effort to blunt Venezuelan propaganda and misinformation…. Particularly when it comes to the Geneva Agreement.

They reaffirmed the commitment to the current judicial process that is being conducted under the aegis of the International Court of Justice and are convinced that this would finally resolve the question raised by Venezuela over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award.”
“They recalled that for more than six decades after the 1899 Arbitral Award was delivered, Venezuela treated the Award as a final settlement of the border between the two countries. To this end, it consistently recognised, affirmed and relied upon the 1899 Arbitral Award as “a full, perfect, and final settlement” of the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela.”
It was pointed out that between 1900 and 1905, Venezuela participated in a joint demarcation and formal ratification of the boundary between the two countries, even publishing official maps that depicted the very boundary set out in the 1899 Award.
“In July 1931, Venezuela concluded a boundary agreement with Brazil that expressly confirmed the tri-junction point of the boundaries of British Guiana, Venezuela and Brazil as described in the 1899 Award. For more than sixty years, Venezuela gave full effect to that Award, and never raised a concern as to its validity and binding legal effects.”

Referendum
In Venezuela, the National Electoral Council has issued five questions to be asked in a national referendum scheduled for December 3, 2023, including a question that seeks the approval of the Venezuelan people to create a new Venezuelan state out of Guyana’s Essequibo region – which the Guyana Government has already lambasted as “brazen” and “pernicious”.
This view was supported by the Opposition during the meeting, with both sides agreeing that the questions in the referendum violate the sanctity of treaties and blatantly disregard international law.
“In particular, question three of the set of questions to be placed before the people of Venezuela speaks to the “historical position” of Venezuela “of not recognising the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba,” the statement said.

“Question five seeks the approval of the Venezuelan people for the creation of a new Venezuelan State consisting of Guyana’s Essequibo Region, to include “the granting of citizenship and Venezuelan identity card in accordance with the Geneva Agreement and international law.” This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the Geneva Agreement and a clear violation of international law.”

Further consultations
Other agreed positions between the two sides during the meeting are that no country has the right to seize or annex any territory in another state; acknowledgement of the international support being received by Guyana and an agreement between President Ali and the Opposition Leader, to keep in close contact on the border controversy.
President Ali was accompanied in the meeting by Prime Minister, Brigadier (Retired) Mark Phillips, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira and Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd.
Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition was accompanied by Members of Parliament Khemraj Ramrattan, Amanza Walton Desir, Geeta Chandon-Edmond, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Ambassador Ronald Austin CCH, Adviser.
Following the meeting, the parliamentary Opposition in an interview with the media described the meeting as a success. Norton informed the media that Guyana is on the right track by making its case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and thus, must stay on that track. He attributed Venezuela’s posturing to the country trying to sway Guyana away from a final judgement from the ICJ.
“Venezuela is trying to shift this thing away from the ICJ. We have to ensure it stays with the ICJ. Our best option is with the ICJ. And Venezuela in this particular document argued, unfortunately and erroneously, that they’re trying to remain in the Geneva Agreement. This process is a result of the Geneva Agreement. We’ve tried for years, the good offices process.”
“What Venezuela is attempting to do is to make it appear as if the Government of Guyana, all of us are rejecting dialogue. We are not. It is from the Geneva Agreement that we ended up at the ICJ. And it is from that agreement that (we are seeking to) settle the (controversy),” Norton said.
Meanwhile, Norton also revealed that during the meeting the issue of Venezuelan migrants in Guyana was raised and it was agreed that this matter would be dealt with in the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations. Asked whether a joint resolution is likely, Norton answered in the affirmative.
Guyana’s legal team before the ICJ is headed by Co-Agent and Counsel, Sir Shridath Ramphal, and includes a member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia, Paul S Reichler; and Professor Emeritus of the University Paris Nanterre, former Chairman of the International Law Commission and member of the Institute de Droit International, Alain Pellet.
United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, in January 2018, decided that the case should be settled by the ICJ, after exercising the powers vested in him to decide how the controversy should be settled by the 1966 Geneva Agreement between Guyana, Venezuela, and the United Kingdom.
He resorted to judicial settlement after the good offices process between Guyana and Venezuela failed. Within the framework of the 1966 Geneva Agreement between the two countries, the Secretary General conducted good offices from 1990 to 2017 to find a solution to the border controversy.
Among other things, Guyana is asking the ICJ to adjudge and declare that the 1899 Award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, that Venezuela is internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Photo saved in October 25 as
Meeting
Caption-