Disappearing borders
Editorial
In the Paramaribo daily, De Ware Tijd, of November 29, Suriname President Ronald Venetiaan was reported as saying that instead of trying to solve the frontier dispute with Guyana, his country should work towards the disappearance of the border altogether. "We are connected to Caricom," the President was quoted as observing, "... so the smuggling at the border is in fact an anachronism, and is not relevant any more." According to the report, he went on to remark, "But as far as the border between Suriname and Guyana is concerned, we will have to realize that this is a disappearing matter. So, to fight now about the location of the border - save the fact that you have to wage war with your neighbour - is something we do not want at all." Well if the border is disappearing, and Suriname does not want to fight about its location, exactly how come the government of that country ordered its gunboats to remove the CGX rig? How come too, after five meetings here, there and everywhere following the CGX expulsion, Suriname absolutely refused to discuss the return of the rig? This was despite the fact that Guyana, on the basis of a 1990 Memorandum of Understanding, indicated that she was willing to work out some arrangement whereby our eastern neighbour could share in the profits from the concession. Again, how come during the various negotiations the Suriname delegation claimed that there was no border issue to discuss, since the marine area of overlap, the whole of the Corentyne river and the New River Triangle were theirs? Do the Surinamers take us for absolute twits? President Venetiaan did concede that where the natural resources in the "disputed area" were concerned, the matter was not so easy. However, he was reported as remarking breezily that a formula could be developed to establish who was entitled both to the resources and the profits therefrom. In the first place, what exactly is the territory in dispute? Is an area in dispute simply because Suriname makes a spurious claim to it even though that claim has no basis whatsoever in international law? And do we then airily agree that the border must disappear, and we will negotiate who is to benefit from resources which have always been within our jurisdiction? Are we really going to sit down with Suriname and discuss who should benefit from the New River Triangle, for example? That would be to concede that our neighbour has rights in a zone which by any stretch of the imagination she does not have, and would automatically lend credence to what is otherwise a meretricious claim. Supposing she claims up to the Berbice River? Should we then say let us ignore the border and discuss sharing the profits from the sugar industry on the Corentyne? Or why don't we claim up to the Coppename River, and then because frontiers are disappearing and we are all sisters in Caricom, why can't we work out some arrangement for sharing the resources of that area? The point is, simplistic as it sounds, you have to have recognized borders first before they can disappear. Boundaries represent the outermost limits of a nation's jurisdiction, with all that that implies. Economic integration - even supposing that were likely with Suriname in the immediate future - is only one part of the story. Thetwocountries have different political systems, different legal systems, different social institutions, etc., etc. Even if, for the sake of argument, we agreed to share the resources of a so-called 'area in dispute' there would still be the question of jurisdiction to settle. And as stated earlier, jurisdiction necessarily implies borders. Let us not forget the history of our relations with our eastern neighbour. They invaded our territory in 1967, and more seriously in 1969. They used force to eject the CGX rig this year, following which they violated our landspace at Scotsburg. They effectively scuttled negotiations following the CGX fiasco, which they seem disinclined to revive. They came onto our territory to sell their licences to our fishermen. They have harassed our citizens in the Corentyne River close to our bank, and violated our airspace. They still issue maps showing the New River Triangle as part of their territory. In thirty years we have never succeeded in negotiating any agreement with them which stuck. President Venetiaan himself has stood in our National Assembly and claimed the New River as part of Suriname, while his first government published a prestige advertisement in our state newspaper showing a map incorporating the Triangle. Are we now to believe that he has had a change of heart? Let us acknowledge President Venetiaan's statement for what it is. It is another manoeuvre to kerfuffle the Guyana Government for the longer-term purpose of undermining our sovereignty on the eastern frontier.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|