The Paris Award
Editorial
Today marks the hundredth anniversary of the arbitral award [please note: link provided by LOSP web site] in Paris which laid down Guyana's frontier with Venezuela. The younger generation of Guyanese, while aware of Venezuela's challenge to the decision of 1899, is less familiar with this country's case than their parents were. They will sometimes ask hesitantly whether there is any substance to Venezuela's charges that she was deprived of land which is rightfully hers. The answer is simple. There isn't. Our next door neighbour, while voluble and aggressive on the topic has yet to produce credible evidence that the award, which the Venezuelan Government of the day agreed in the 1897 Treaty of Washington should be a "full, perfect and final settlement," was in any way flawed. It is true that Britain would not entertain any Venezuelan judge on the tribunal which sat to consider the issue. There were, however, two American judges, and it was the United States, it must be remembered, which had supported Venezuela and had virtually driven the British to the arbitration table. One of Americans who sat to hear the arguments in Paris was Melville Fuller, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who had been selected by Venezuela. In addition, de Martens, the Russian Chairman, was a common candidate of the Venezuelans, British and Americans. The other members of the tribunal were the British judges, Russell and Henn Collins, and Brewer of the US Supreme Court. In the end, however, the key issue is the quality of the decision, not the nationality of the arbiters. Furthermore, as has often been pointed out, Venezuela had an entirely free hand in her choice of counsel, and she elected to retain American and not Venezuelan lawyers. Her team was led by former President Harrison of the United States, and included as its youngest member Severo Mallet-Prevost who several decades after the event was to pen a poisoned memorandum for posterity. It is also true that when announcing the award, the tribunal gave no reasons for its decision, something which would be unacceptable nowadays. It was a more common phenomenon in the nineteenth century, however, and in any case it does not mean that the award was necessarily improperly arrived at. Venezuela has raised various other objections to the Paris Award, but none has achieved more notoriety than Mallet-Prevost's posthumous allegation that it was the result of a political deal between the Russians and the British, and not a judicial decision at all. It has to be observed that the diplomatic history of the period does not bear him out, but that is not the only objection which can be raised against it. Several writers have pointed out that not only did Mallet-Prevost wait many years until everyone who had been remotely connected with the issue had died, but he did not even publish his accusation in his lifetime. He ensured, therefore, that he could not be challenged by his peers, and that he personally was beyond the reach of any earthly interrogation. And make no mistake, he was the only one associated with the arbitration either as judge or counsel who made this particular asseveration. It should be added that Mallet-Prevost's motives have been called into question by virtue of the fact that the memorandum was written shortly after he was invested with Venezuela's highest award. But there is something else which is even more problematic, and has been pointed out too by more than one writer. That is, how was it that Britain did not get the whole of her claim if she had made a deal with Russia? Surely if that had been the case there would have been a majority decision awarding her what she had asked for. As it was, she was not awarded Barima Point or land lying between the left bank of the Wenamu and the Cuyuni, and she was especially interested in securing Barima Point. For those familiar with the historical data, there is little doubt that the trend of the evidence runs unequivocally in Guyana's favour, and that the award is not out of consonance with it. On this, the hundredth anniversary of the Paris decision, the nation needs to come together to reaffirm its commitment to this final settlement of our western frontier. 
|