Rohee urges pride and passion in defence of territorial intergity
By Patrick Denny
The justice of Guyana's cause and the correctness of its position that the 1899 Arbitral Award settled its border with Venezuela was the central theme of the forum sponsored by the Guyana Is First group at Le Meridien Pegasus Hotel yesterday. The forum was the first public event of the group and focused on the 'Genesis of Territorial Issues and the Evolution of a Frontiers' Policy'. Speakers, among them Foreign Minister, Clement Rohee; former foreign minister, Rashleigh Jackson; retired diplomat and public servant, Cedric Joseph; international lawyer, Dr Barton Scotland; Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran; university lecturers, Drs Rishi Thakur and Mark Kirton; and army Chief of Staff, Major General Joe Singh, all supported the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and pointed to the flimsiness of Venezuela's claim based on a posthumous memorandum, the accuracy of which it is now impossible to fully test. In declaring the conference open, Rohee noted that recent events have indicated positions on and attitudes to the award in Venezuela had not changed in any fundamental way despite the passing of 100 years. "More particularly, they have remained so despite many overtures from us on the Guyana side for a peaceful settlement to the controversy." Rohee observed that notwithstanding its obligations under the international agreements it signed, Venezuela has pursued a series of acts of intimidation and coercion despite the existence of "the Geneva Agreement which sought to provide an atmosphere for rational discussion by prohibiting any claims and counter-claims." Also, he said, "despite the Protocol of Port-of-Spain which virtually provided a 12-year breathing space, again for national discussion and the implementation of programmes for the promotion of friendship and cooperation, the opportunity was used by Venezuela to seek to gain concessions in the Essequibo region and prevent development in the area." An example of the consequences flowing from their actions during this period, Rohee pointed out, was the delaying and eventual shelving of the Upper Mazaruni Hydro-Electric Project. But he noted that in the face of these provocations Guyana, since gaining its independence, has despite its size and the limited options available to it, been able to successfully blunt Venezuela's design on its territory. This, he said, it was able to do because of the strength derived from the very legitimacy of Guyana's position, the justness of its cause and the support of the international community. But importantly, he added, "we have been able to do so because of the resilience of an informed people for whom 'Not a Blade a Grass' is not just a song but a moral imperative for defence and national solidarity." Rohee stressed that the sanctity of Guyana's borders and preservation of its territorial integrity remained a principal objective of Guyana's foreign policy. As a consequence, he observed that "there should be pride and passion in the defence of our territorial integrity and a sense of comfort, induced by the absence of external threats, in the peaceful development within secure borders of our national patrimony. "For such a state to exist for the people of Guyana through all generations to feel this pride and this passion, there needs to be an ongoing process of information and education about all aspects of frontier policy and the threats that exist to our territorial integrity." This process of education, he said, was not a task for any one government but "it must be an all-inclusive national effort involving all sectors of society." Explaining the present policy towards Venezuela in the face of the various acts to hinder the country's economic development, Rohee said that Guyana has been actively pursuing a policy of friendship and cooperation. He said that it has been doing so in the belief that if programmes of economic, social and cultural cooperation were actively and successfully developed then discussions in relation to the controversy could more than likely take place in a rational rather than confrontational atmosphere. Rohee, in dealing with the validity of the Arbitral Award, said that were it to be accepted as null and void, then everything would be on the table and Guyana would be able to lay claim to territory which it had lost as a result of it. He stated too that the Arbitral Award "is now an identifiable part of the principle of international law which speaks to the inviolability of borders. "It is an important aspect of Brazilian law and national policy in that the principle of inviolability of settled boundaries, such as between Guyana and Venezuela, is applicable to the boundary arrangements which Brazil has with all her ten neighbours." Rohee also noted the chaos that would ensue should the award be declared null and void. He noted that Brazil, countries in Europe and Asia and others with artificially determined but now quite settled borders "would be thoroughly opposed to any country that seeks, as Venezuela is doing, to unilaterally abrogate a freely determined boundary, particularly one that has been in existence and internationally accepted for a hundred years as ours has been." As a consequence he said that "our frontier policy therefore must and will continue to be based on these solid foundations." The other speakers also demonstrated the flimsiness of Venezuela's claim. Dr Scotland said that the essence of Venezuela's claim was that it covered all the land that was in dispute, without objecting to the territory which had been awarded. He explained that Venezuela would need to demonstrate, if it was claiming that the award was as a result of a deal between the United Kingdom and Russia, how come the United States which was its strongest supporter, voted for the division of the territory. Joseph, in his presentation, pointed out that from a perusal of the historic documents Venezuela freely participated in the work of the Arbitral Tribunal and had appointed commissioners to demarcate the boundaries in accordance with the award. He noted too that Severo Mallet-Prevost, on whose posthumous memorandum Venezuela's claim was based, had been rebuked for his attempts to favour Venezuela during his work with the Arbitral Commission which preceded the Tribunal. He noted too that the 1962 agreement entered into by Britain with Venezuela to allow for an examination of documents was as a result of British preoccupation with safeguarding the considerable commercial interest it had in Venezuela. There was also the consideration by the United States that it could not allow a communist state in the hemisphere, fearing that an attack on Venezuela could have been coordinated by communist Guyana and Cuba. Joseph also pointed out that the 1962 and 1966 (Geneva Agreement) might have been entered into as a result of Britain not wanting to leave Guyana "naked" when it achieved its independence. He noted too that the historical documents indicated that Britain was aware that it was moving away from its original position that the Arbitral Award did not provide for a revision of the Guyana-Venezuela border.
|