If the agreement was between two Dutch counties as opposed to two countries, then that agreement cannot be binding between two nations. If this is the case then Guyana ,and by extension Surinam, should be agreeing on a new border.

My understanding is that the agreement was between Britain and the Netherlands, the two powers that owned Guyana and Surinam respectively. If this is in fact the case then that agreement would still be binding but if seen to be unfair, could be appealed to whatever world authority has jurisdiction over issues of this nature – CARICOM or the UN; I am not sure which.

Remember that this was done between two Dutch countys.

Diplomacy first
International Court second
and at the very last resort…

Let us see how this works out…

The embargo idea is quite interesting because the Surinam people are now visiting Guyana to buy stuff too.

This matter needs a slow build-up of pressure by the Guyana Government to send a clear message that we will defend our borders and we will not accept bullying because they have many gun-boats and our only gun-boat has broken down.

…”The Guyana government bases its claims on maps which were printed in British Guiana in 1913 and 1924 which placed the boundary between the two colonies along the thalweg (deepest channel) of the Corentyne.
This boundary was recognised by the Dutch in the early 1930’s”

My comment is that if the Dutch recognised Guyana’s interest in 1930, then this would supersede any older stipulations. I would be interested on your view on this please.

Please keep in mind that there were 3 disputed areas: the territorial seas, sovereignty over the Corentyne, and the New River triangle.

If you read this PDF ( http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/transnational/vol13_1/donovan.pdf ) on page 90 (the 50th page of the pdf) you will see that Guyana can’t make any successful claim for the sovereignty of the Corentyne.

The matter of the territorial seas was settled with the UNCLOS judgement, leaving the New River Triangle to be disputed.

Even though International law states that the “thalweg” should be used to define borders, it also states that this should be so, unless special agreements are in place. In a 1799 treaty the west bank of the Corentyne is stated to be the border. After that other treaties were made, in which this 1799 treaty was used, without contesting this boundary, which would weaken Guyana in its claim.

If Guyana wants to oppose this, let them do so, but until they get a favorable award, Suriname holds sovereignty over the Corentyne river and can do “whatever it wants” on the river. So if they decide to require Guyanese ships to be piloted by a Surinamese pilot (or, as the Surinamese press states, that ships with a load capacity greater than 50 ton should be guided by a pilot vessel), then so be it. Who are you then to say that you don’t “recognize their administrating the waterway”?

… Do you NOW understand why Jagdeo, ie the Guyanese government, will not (be able to) react with (demonstration of) force???

“Another strange thing: How come it seems to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get a comment from ANYONE FROM SURINAME? NO ONE??? Not even a member of the coast guard? Not even someone from the streets? Not the ambassador?”

The answer to these questions is because Surinamese are educated about their history as it’s relates to the Corentyne River. By-the-way, anyone know what history of Guyana is being studied apart from Cuffy’s 1763 in Berbice?

Until Guyana officially gets its way (half of, or maybe the whole river), it will have to accept Suriname’s authority over the river, and be happy to be allowed to use it under certain conditions. I now start to understand why Jagdeo hasn’t retaliated yet: HE IS BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL LAW! He first has to object to this law and get a beneficial judgment before he can do anything.

See, we are now starting to get more information: Why 3 gunboats? Because the captain NEVER STOPPED THE VESSEL!!! Even IF you think you are in your rights, when you are approached by authorities, such action will be deemed resistance! and it will call for counter actions!

Funny thing is that the Surinamese people probably thought the Surinamese government was weak for allowing the Guyanese to “whatever they want” in Surinamese territory. Think of what you would Jagdeo to do if the situation was reversed. You would probably applaud him for showing his authority, if it was him who did this.

Another strange thing: How come it seems to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get a comment from ANYONE FROM SURINAME? NO ONE??? Not even a member of the coast guard? Not even someone from the streets? Not the ambassador? ‘Cause all I read is what Guyanese said happened.

When I hear/read that the Jagdeo demanded for the Surinamese Ambassador to appear in his office to explain these action, when I hear/read that Jagdeo either invited Venetiaan to GT or asked to be received in Par’bo to discuss the situation, and all these were refused, that’s when I will believe that Suriname is being non-compliant/aggressive/provocative.

Stop this stupidness and start taking positive action. Be more pro-active! If your neighbor is unilaterally trying to claim part of your property as his own, you don’t just sit at home saying that you are willing to discuss this dispute. You first try to reason with him and if that fails, you drag him to court to settle the matter. It would be funny if my neighbor claims part of my land to be his own and expects me to just sit there and watch how he uses that land to plant his garden.

In other words: if you have shown willingness to discuss the matter, with no positive response from the other party GO TO COURT!!!

I’m starting to get the feeling that the top of both countries keep procrastinating this issue, so they can use it to create tensions when they want to divert attention from more pressing issues.

All in all, first ask yourself how YOU would react if the situation was reversed!

Ow, and about the eastern border of Suriname (@ michael tannassee): The same International law applies there… The Marowijne river belongs to Suriname. The French have accepted this agreement and respect it, so there has never been reason to take action on that side.