|
|
|
|
Guyana/Venezuela Border Controversy
Dear
Mrs. Jagan:
I
am writing you as a concerned citizen who has had many years of
association
with and involvement in the formulation and implementation
of
foreign policy including Guyana's relations with Venezuela in
all its
plenitude.
In this regard I was quite distressed to read in the local press
statements
attributed to you on the question of Guyana's relations with
Venezuela
which appeared after your Press Briefings on your recent
visit
to Venezuela.
Three
issues cause me distress. The first is a statement which indicated
that
you were unaware of the occupation by Venezuela of the Guyana
portion
of Ankoko Island. The second is your statement about the
involvement
of the United Nations in the search for peaceful solutions to
the
controversy. The third is what I call the cavalier way in which
you
responded
to questions about the statements appearing in the Venezuelan
press
which have been attributed to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister
in
relation
to the conclusion of an Environmental Treaty between Guyana
and
Venezuela.
As
regards the first question, that is Ankoko, I am taking the liberty
of
sending
with this letter two brochures which were produced by the
Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in 1981. One contains documents on the
Territorial
Integrity of Guyana (Guyana/Venezuela) and the other is a
Memorandum
on the Guyana/Venezuela Boundary. I hope that a
thorough
perusal of these documents will fill many lacunae which appear
in
your information base about the issue of the controversy with
Venezuela.
Further,
as regards the occupation of Ankoko by Venezuela, there was
a
resolution adopted unanimously by the National Assembly on l9th
July,
1968
in relation to the decree which President Leoni of Venezuela had
issued
purporting to annex a nine mile belt of sea outside the Essequibo
Coast.
That resolution contained a paragraph which reads as follows:
"And
whereas in violation of the Geneva Agreement, Venezuela continues
illegally
to occupy territory of Guyana in Ankoko Island." As I said,
that
resolution
was adopted unanimously. I believe that you were a member
of
Parliament at that time. I do not know what was the nature of
your
briefing
by the Foreign Minister on the whole issue of the controversy
with
Venezuela
before your visit, nevertheless, I would suggest that the documents
which
I have enclosed be made compulsory reading not only for him but
also
for other members of your Cabinet and all in the PPP/CIVIC
administration
who deal with the Venezuela issue. You may also wish
to
consider making them available to the Editor of your Party's newspaper
and
to some of the correspondents who write in the Mirror on the
Guyana/Venezuela
border.
The
second issue is that of the involvement of the United Nations
in the
search
for a solution to the controversy. The involvement of the U.N.
really
stemmed from the implementation of Article iv of the Geneva
Agreement.
In this regard, I am enclosing for your information, a copy
of
a press release dated March 30, 1983 which was issued by the
Ministry
of Foreign Affairs when the Government of Guyana and the
Government
of Venezuela agreed in accordance with the provisions
of
the Geneva Agreement to refer to the Secretary General the question
of
the choice of means of settlement of the controversy.
It
is not as you are alleged to have asserted that the U.N. moved
in because
that
is the U.N.'s job. The U.N. is involved in the issue as a result
of a
conscious
decision by the governments of Guyana and Venezuela.
The
third issue is the manner in which you dealt with statements attributed
to
Foreign Minister Burelli on the question of the Environmental
Treaty. Quite
frankly,
I am amazed at your reaction to those statements. I would have
thought
that a statement purporting to come from a very senior functionary
like
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela would be analyzed
rather
more
carefully than being dismissed in a cavalier manner in which you
said
virtually
that he could say what he likes.
I
believe that the proper thing for the Government of Guyana to
have done
was
to seek clarification on the issue. After all, there is a Venezuelan
Ambassador
in Georgetown and a Guyanese Ambassador in Caracas.
Surely
inquires could have been made about the authenticity of the
statement
because if Mr. Burelli confirms that the newspaper reports
are
correct, very serious issues and implications arise for Guyana's
sovereignty
since he talks about the granting of concessions in the
Essequibo
region.
While
on this issue, it is not clear whether the Treaty being negotiated
relates
only to the Essequibo Region or whether it encompasses the whole
of
Guyana. Further, would territory in Venezuela be included as well?
There
is
a derivative question: why is this Environmental Treaty being
negotiated
under
the aegis of the McIntyre process which is after all concerned
with
the
settlement of the controversy?
Are
there not other appropriate arrangements under which an Environmental
Treaty
between Guyana and Venezuela can be negotiated?
There
is for instance the Treaty of Amazonian Cooperation; and I believe
that
there is an existing bilateral agreement between Guyana and Venezuela
to
cooperate in the implementation of that treaty as it affects their
respective
territories.
Bringing the Treaty under the McIntyre process would be
inferentially
associating environmental matters with the border controversy
which
I think is fraught with danger.
There
are other aspects which I wish to draw to your attention. One
is
reflected
in the Mirror of Sunday, July 26, 1998. This paper carried what
I
consider to be a naive cartoon showing yourself and President
Caldera
shaking
hands over a map on which is placed the sign ‘Border Dispute'
with
‘Dispute' crossed out and ‘Cooperation' put in its place.
This
cartoon suggests that as a result of your visit that whatever
the Mirror
means
to be a dispute has come to an end and has been replaced by
cooperation.
In the first place, cooperation between Guyana and Venezuela
has
been ongoing for many years. It did not begin with your visit
nor would
it
end with that visit. A second aspect centers on my belief that
in referring to
the
border with Venezuela we should stick as closely as possible to
the
language
of the Geneva Agreement which speaks of a controversy
between
Guyana and Venezuela which has arisen as a result of the
Venezuela
contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 is null and void.
The
way I see it is that the Boundary was settled by the 1899. Award
as
a "full, final and perfect settlement" and therefore
no territorial dispute
exists.
What we have is a claim by Venezuela as a result of which there
is
a
controversy. I think it is a point of great importance and should
not be
dismissed
as merely being semantic.
Finally,
I should let you know that I am sending copies of this letter
to the
leaders
of the parties of the opposition in Parliament as well as the
Editors of
the
Stabroek News, the Chronicle, the Mirror and the New Nation. My
overriding
concern is that you fully inform yourself about the controversy
between
Venezuela and Guyana and the evolution of events and the various
steps
which have been taken to find a solution to that controversy.
As a
result
of a stroke I suffered on May 10 this year, I am unable to sign
this
letter.
I have therefore asked a friend to sign on my behalf.
Hon.
Mr. Rashleigh Jackson, O.R.
Former
Foreign Minister
August
1998
|
|
|
