Dear Editor,
I have read with dismay the article entitled ‘Diplomatic Belligerence’ which appeared on page 12 of Kaieteur News on October 21, 2008. A second article in today’s (October 23) issue continues in the same vein.
The writer began by imploring Guyanese to “not allow… love for Guyana to blind them to an objective assessment of the facts.” I will not seek to assess the love for which country made the writer make the sweeping assertions that he made, but I must say that s/he did not adhere to his own advice.
For instance, s/he asserts that s/he knows of “no principle of international law” which supports the contention that there should be user rights or shared sovereignty over the use of the Corentyne River. But s/he did not say on what principle, law or agreement s/he bases Suriname’s sovereignty over the river. Was it by default? What are the principles of international law or case law to support that contention? The writer makes the assertion that “clearly Suriname feels that the high water mark is its territory” and insinuates that this is consistent with international law which gives a country exclusive rights over its territory. While this is an absurdity in and of itself, what about what Guyana feels, if subjective views, according to the writer, hold sway in international law?
The writer alludes to a “historical agreement” which supposedly gave Suriname sovereignty over the river, but I do not know how the readers are to educate themselves about that “agreement” if it is not identified. I must therefore be forgiven if I assume that the writer was referring to the 1799 Governors’ Agreement, whereby the Governors of Berbice and Suriname sought to declare the rights of the respective colonies. The 1799 Governors’ agreement did not assign to Suriname’s ownership of the river. The agreement stated that “none of the Islands situate in the River Corentyne shall be included in this provisional cession, but always be acknowledged to belong to the Government of the Colony of Surinam.”
I am advised that there is a Latin phrase that contract and treaty lawyers often use: Expressio unias est exclusio alteris (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). That is, the Governors expressly stated that the islands are Suriname’s and therefore excluded the river from their agreement. If the Governors had decided that the Corentyne River was Suriname’s then ipso facto, there would have been reasonable grounds to argue that the islands would have also been Suriname’s. They did not do so.
Clearly, therefore, the 1799 Governors’ Agreement is of no support to the assertions made by the writer. I invite the writer to revert to me if the 1799 Agreement is not the “historical agreement” to which he refers. I know of no other agreement that is relevant to the matter at hand.
The writer states that there are principles which in the absence of an agreement would allow for the demarcation of river boundaries. I am advised that, in international law and practice, agreement precedes demarcation, not the reverse. However international law and practice aid negotiation, the preparation of agreements and indeed “understandings” pending formal agreement since the parties concerned are able to use the law and practice to guide them in their search for an “arrangement” that does not prejudice their legitimate rights. This has been the reason for Guyana invoking the jurisprudence of the cases with Venezuela and Brazil. There are other cases that support Guyana’s position, but those two are geographically close. The jurisprudence is dispassionate, and they are invoked by Guyana because they indicate what are perhaps the very least that both sides would be given rights to if there could be mutual agreement (and that is absolutely necessary) to engage in some form of adjudicatory process to definitively delimit the boundary with respect to the Corentyne River. For that the Government of Guyana is ridiculed by the writer, but may I remind him/her that this was the position of the British before our independence in 1966. It was the position that Britain and The Netherlands all but signed off on by September of 1939. It is the position of every Guyanese who is informed of the facts and the law.
As if it were at all necessary to impugn the sanctity of agreements that established the point where the boundaries among Guyana, Brazil and Suriname meet, the writer states that Guyana should “move towards an international commission to definitively settle this (the Corentyne River dispute) and the more (emphasis mine) contentious issue of the New River Triangle.” Guyana has not traditionally been a member of the less than handful of countries that advocate the reopening or revision of boundary agreements, treaties or awards which are solemnly entered into. Guyana is not about to join them. Secondly, the writer should perhaps be forgiven if he has forgotten that there is an established mechanism of meetings of the Border Commissions of Guyana and Suriname. It is Suriname’s turn to issue invitations for the next meeting.
The writer charges that the Government of Guyana has neglected to seek an arrangement with Suriname that would have ensured the use of the Corentyne River by ships transporting sugar from the expanded facility at Skeldon. Not so. Suriname’s notification purporting to extend Surinamese law and regulations into the Corentyne River (dated May 15, 2008 but received in Guyana on July 7, 2008) was responded to by Guyana. In its response Guyana stated that Surinamese officials could not arrogate to themselves the authority to institute the arrangements mentioned. Guyana requested consultations. There was no response from Suriname until after the incident of October 14, 2008.
Again, the writer should be forgiven for either not making himself aware or not knowing or recognising that Suriname’s position is not to negotiate rights to the use of the river, but to impose terms by which Guyana and Guyanese would be allowed to use it. Is the writer suggesting that this is a position that Guyana must accept?
I have counted 33 inaccuracies and unsubstantiated assertions in the piece. Space did not allow me to address each of them.
Mr Editor, I have full respect for the right of journalists to write and express opinions, however contrary to Guyana’s position those opinions might be or supportive to those who maintain claims to Guyana’s territory and or seek to impugn our rights.
What I object to and cannot entertain are opinion pieces that are not based on fact and law or are so subjective, that truth and fact must be suppressed – even if the result is an attack on the interests of every Guyanese. That, Mr Editor, borders on the unpardonable.
Yours faithfully,
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett
Minister of Foreign Affairs
I see Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Minister of Foreign Affairs has responding to an article in KN on Guyana/Suriname matters in the letter above.
I have bloged about Dr. Jagan’s blunder regarding Suriname’s admission to Caricom and by extension, his unwittingly dismissal of Guyana’s arguements and by so doing Guyana has no valid claims in the eyes of Suriname. That Guyana’s only recourse to settle these issues is to take a full case of border and territorial issues to the UNCLS…..no diplomatic effort and or caricom effort can resolve these matters.
In the same vein of the views expressed in the letter, will she be willing to address my damning contention. Or is it a policy of hers and her government not to respond to real issues but only inconsequential.
Relax Evan, she’s a foreign minister without a clue. She will respond when someone enlightens her.
Evan, The PPP govt. has no real plans to develop Guyana. It has stumbled so many times and refuse to learn from those who know. Caricom is toothless, they treat Guyana/Guyanese with contempt. Suriname is a bully and Guyana is impotent.
1794 Map of Corentyne and Berbice
Fall, 2003 MARITIME & TERRITORIAL DISPUTES page 51
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/transnational/vol13_1/donovan.pdf
You are asked to visit this website for further enlightenment.
This problem must be resolved
In studying the history of the Guyana/Suriname border, I had learnt that Barbice was once a state/county of the Dutch Territory, and had its’ own governor who had agreed with the governor of the East Bank of the Corentyne River that; “the border between the two states is the high water mark on the West Bank of the Corentyne River.”
Suriname continues to implement this agreement today against the Guyanese Government and People. They are claiming even the exposed land at low tide on the Guyana’s side of the border. This problem must be resolved in International Court.
I don’t know all the facts but the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if he claim to know so much, like she should, should call a media conference and address this serious issue and answer journalists questions. Guyanese will also be educated on the subject more.
We will detain any vessel in breach of the 1981 law
October 24, 2008 | By knews | Filed Under News
Does Guyana have an ambassador in Suriname? Is he/she being paid with our taxpayers’ money to defend our rights in Suriname? What has he/she done in light of recent developments? Why do we have an ambassador from Suriname based in Georgetown literally telling us that they, Suriname, will detain any vessel of OURS in breach of a law only they seem to be aware of? Have all the people with brains & testicular fortitude left Guyana?
He is a guyanese born canadian citizen: Krishna Arjune.
This letter is to intelluctually intricate for me. I have a simple question and I wish someone would give me a simple answer. Where is the boundary between Guyana and Suriname? Is it in the middle of the Courentyne River or is it where ever the high tide reaches on the Guyana side (the west bank) of the Courentyne River? If it is on the high tide mark on the Guyana side, I would like to know the names of the clowns and idiots who signed on behalf of Guyana and agreed to this absurdity.
In 1977, during talks between the two countries, Guyana’s Foreign Minister Fred Wills granted Suriname exclusive rights to the river and agreed that the boundary lay at the high water mark on the Guyana side.
There is has never been a formal agreement regarding the boundary between Guyana and Suriname.
It is our position that the Corentyne is a border river, and it is Suriname’s position that the river is a national river.
Herein lies the contention, in addition Suriname’s sudden claim that the New River Triangle is the source of the Corentyne (and thus claiming the NRT and all territory from the NRT to the Kutari/Cutari), when over and over again they agreed that the Kutari was the source of the Corentyne. Maps used by the British and even the dutch support this.
For there to be a change in the maps to show the NRT as belonging to Suriname, it would mean changing the border (at the tri-junction) point with Brazil, something I’m sure they’re not ready to do, since the Treaty signed between Guyana Brazil and Suriname place the tri-junction point (where the 3 territories meet) at the Kutart river (whats funny is that the Dutch were the ones to suggested this point and the other countries simply agreed to it).
I think we should all educate ourselves on the history of this dispute and not view it within the context of politics, i.e. PPP. PNC and so on.
The Minister has her history down phat!
Guyana has a good case if this matter goes to international tribunal and thats what Suriname wants to avoid, instead they wait until we’re having a difficult time at home and then use force and aggression to force us to accept what they want.
Even though we’re a small country with limited resources, it does not mean that we have to accept such treatment when we KNOW we’re in the right.!.!.!
Suriname would start taxing vessels that use that river. Only then wil Parrat wake up.
RL
According to histiorical records in a nutshell,at one time the British owned all the Guianas, an area that included what is now called Suriname.When the British handed over the Surinamese part of Guiana to the Dutch( they were allies) after the Napoleonic wars sometime after 1804-1815,the overseers for the two colonies met in Suriname.However, neither of them discussed a final border demarkation line on the Courantyne River separating the two nations.And things were left like that, until Suriname began to lay claim to Guyana’s territory.Any International boundaries commission would have split the river equally betwen the two nations.However, since Guyana never had a counter claim just as the Surinamese have,which Guyana should have had,nor asserted it’s authority in the Courantyne,Suriname was emboldened to act as a bully. The result of the Guyana government’s inactivity has left us where we are today.Guyana must assert it’s authority and protect it’s territory, and seize any foreign vessel crossing the mid point of the Courantyne River and going west.Will the government now please stand up and be counted, and let the people of Guyana know what you are doing,and what you intend to do to fix this mess you have left Guyanese in.All Guyana has to do,is to declare the midpoint of the Courantyne the international boundary.Then seize any Surinamese ship trespassing on Guyana’s territorial waters.Actually,this is not new. Suriname is doing the same thing,only it’s claim is ridiculous.
Sorry to ask this question, but is this Foreign Affairs Minister an attorney at law with an eye for contractual history and details??… And more importantly, can she accurately interpret the legal history of this Suriname/Guyana conflict??…
This is not a personal attack on Mrs Rodrigues-Birkett, because I don’t know her, however, all of the previous agreements, signings and treaties on this issue must be studied in total from a legal perspective. And I’m talking specifically about before 1966 and British Guiana. Research must be conducted in the Netherlands and London.
This conflict must be solved in the international courts of the UN and not through the diplomatic channels of the Caricom family. And another thing madame Minister, stop being so defensive with the local media they are not the villains here and their job is to query on behalf of the people.
She is a PPP member, that is better than being an intellectual or one of legal mind
After sleeping on the comments to Mrs Rodrigues-Birkett’s letter my position on the Corentyne river boundary dispute has changed a little bit.
It appears that, at the time, the then Foreign Affairs Minister, Fred Wills and the Burnham administration did not see fit to adjudicate this river boundary at the highest international arena, but settled for kicking the can down the road instead. Their responsibility was to execute on behalf of the Guyanese people and I’m sure that, they would argue that diplomacy was the appropriate choice at the time.
Their actions have brought Guyana to this point in time which was not necessary a bad thing back then. However, your job as the present Foreign Affairs Minister is to decide whether kicking the can further down the road again is a better choice than to adjudicate at the UN.
If your decision is to punt again then diplomacy is the way to go and maybe Caricom might be the obvious venue. It’s like buying time and not solving the problem. However, if the Gov’t of Guyana decides to fight this river boundary dispute at an international tribunal like they did recently on the CXG oil exploration. Then you had better start assembling a team of experienced lawyers who make their living reading fine print and doing legal research, because this dispute could only be won on an argument based on historic technicality of international water ways… Good luck madam Minister this is your moment for Guyana.
Suriname claims that they have and agreement entered into with former PNC Foreign Minister Fred Wills, giving them exclusive right to the river. I wish if we could see a copy of this agreement. PNC, Omai, Barama, GT&T…..now Courantign.
Red Lion
i said it b4 ,, send home the suriname ambassador ,, and whoever is the GY ,, counterpart ,, don’t even wait for him to be asked to leave ,, and that will bring this to a head ,, and final decision ,,, by whatever means ,, to achieve the end ,, which is the border and that is the middle of the c’tyne river ,,, end of story ,,
Fred Wills was a learned lawyer ,, one who was well respected in the legal circles ,, not only in the c’bean i dare say,, but in the halls of justice in the UK ,,
having said this ,, i feel that what ever Fred said is being misinterpreted ,, and should be given more attention ! there is no way Fred would make such an assinine agreement not with burnham lookin over his shoulders !
we MUST do something NOW ,, suriname is in a tit for tat mind set ,, they r stung by the demarcation arrived at by the int’l court and that soon full scale exploration will commence with the end result being GUYANA as the new KID on the block !,,,,, so they have joined forces ,, with those with ,, to embark on their misguided stratagem of DESTABILISATION !……
I agree. Who in their right mind would makes such a concession? We now know that prior to 1977 Suriname had no legal right to their claim on the entire river. Maybe they have misinterpreted Fred. This matter has been unresolved for too long.
RL
Yes. I agree with Michael Tannassee. We, all Guyanese, need to push and work with the government to have this issue resolved.
I absolutely agree that Wills would not have entered into a scandalous agreement with Burnham looking over his shoulders. Our soldiers at the New River Triangle for years kept the Suirnamese at bay. It must be the domestic politics and crime which have weakened the government structure that has given them the guts to try what they are now doing.
We all need to be united and remember “We ain givin up no river dat belong to we”.