Dear Editor,
“In Guyana, the course of febrile politics and ethnic rivalry between the two major political parties has led to some calculated misrepresentation and sheer propaganda on this highly sensitive issue.
“Indeed, on occasions, the differences have veered so sharply off course as to impair the national response to the external threats of the territorial integrity.
It is also indisputable that the external claimants have exploited these cleavages in Guyanese society to their own strategic advantage.”
The foregoing will be found in the preface to the very scholarly book Anglo-American Diplomacy and the Reopening of the Guyana-Venezuela Boundary Controversy, 1961-1966 by Cedric L Joseph.
It is my firm conviction that the quoted passage succinctly expressed the germane underlying need yet to be overcome within Guyana so as to realise the unstinted support of all Guyana against the spurious claim by Venezuela, resulting in the ongoing controversy on the inviolability of the 1899 arbitral award.
It is my further conviction that the title of the book is perhaps somewhat irresponsible. The drafters of the 1966 Geneva Agreement took particular care and in the choice of language employed, made sure that the re-examination of pertinent documents did not concede a hint of reopening the claim by Venezuela to ⅝ of the then British Guiana. The 1899 award is still completely intact and remains inviolate.
Indeed, this is a highly sensitive issue as described by Cedric Joseph, and Guyana must be ever alert in ensuring that any move to infringe the official status quo of the award is not countenanced. It is incumbent on Guyana to assert at all times and at every opportunity the inviolability of the 1899 arbitral award.
Yours faithfully,
David DeGroot
