I am honoured to join you this evening on this auspicious occasion which I believe has as its core objective the reaffirmation and celebration of the vital role of the free Press in today’s world, Guyana being no exception.
I wish to extend a word of thanks the Guyana Press Association [GPA] for inviting me to participate in this event. I should also specially acknowledge your President, Ms Nazima Raghubir, who, ‘ominously for my male colleagues’, has done an outstanding job in this role and as the first elected female President of this prestigious Association.
No doubt you are tired of being regaled about the role which journalists ought to play in our countries during these challenging times. Obviously as a state in the path to development we need much more than mere reporting. Development is at the heart of our concerns in Guyana today and at issue is the impact of the changes taking place or likely to take place around us. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the Geneva-based WEF, has coined a term to describe these changes, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” He argued that a technological revolution is underway “that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.” In it new technologies like artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles and the internet of things are merging with humans’ physical lives – voice-activated assistants, facial ID recognition or digital health-care sensors for example – and in particular how individuals, companies and governments operate. Ultimately it involves radical societal transformations. In addition to that Guyana itself is about to embark on a special journey which will change its development trajectory and which threatens to transform its values and the very nature of the society. Information and its use lies close to the centre of those changes.
As one of the officials who face you in your ceaseless pursuit of information, I can acknowledge that we have had our differences, and this is normal in the overall scheme of things. Apart from the routine disagreements over accuracy of reporting and inelegance of language, a variety of fundamental issues are likely to engage and divide us in future in the media and press arena, speed of movement of information – from the bang to the reader, issues of bias, manipulation of information, false news and all the challenges generated by the social media.
In spite of the current differences that challenge us I believe that if we are bound by a common commitment to transparency and accountability, protecting the rights of the Guyanese people, ensuring our country remains a free and just society and even safeguarding its sovereignty, we can be productive together. I will return to this aspect of our collaboration.
Before that, I should point out that at a time when journalists around the world continue to face fierce attacks, causing some to even lose their lives, and the freedom of the Press is challenged, I am proud to note that Guyana in 2019 moved up four places on the Reporters Without Borders [RSF] World Press Freedom Index, standing now at 51st out of the 180 countries in the index. On this index, Guyana is the fourth highest ranked in South America. I believe that both the Government of Guyana, because of its respect for and strict adherence to freedom of the Press, and the Guyana Press Association, for its tenacious advocacy of those universally acceptable principles, must be commended.
This achievement ought to be a point of pride for the Press, the Government, Civil Society and every citizen of Guyana. We need to continue building on the consistent progress that we have seen over the past four years in this regard. It is the duty of every Guyanese to ensure that our constitutional guarantees of free speech and the right to information are never threatened or debased.
I believe that it is apposite to note that the GPA is the 2nd oldest media membership and advocacy body in the English-speaking Caribbean. It has persevered through many challenging eras in our country. It behooves me to underscore and applaud your success in ensuring access to information – do not expect me to say that this has not gone overboard at times -, exposing injustices, and providing a voice to the voiceless in our society. As you know, the Government of Guyana is mindful of the necessity of having citizens informed and allowed to express opinions and concerns. I note, for example, the many radio stations that we have facilitated in towns and far flung areas of our country since assuming office. These are ample testimony to our commitment in this regard.
I am aware that the GPA has also done crucial work in facilitating training to develop young professional journalists and others in the media. The GPA must continue to lead the way and set an example to young people who aspire to enter this distinguished profession.
I am not sure whether this is a good platform to turn to the matter of international diplomacy and the situation with the challenge to Guyana’s territorial integrity. In the interest of time however I will now turn to the specific matter for which you have invited me and the issues that have coloured the interface between myself at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the media over recent years.
Guyanese old enough would know of one type of ‘estate’, namely the sugar estates and their role in moulding and shaping Caribbean society from the 17th century up to the 1960s. More recently however there has been the emergence of a new ‘estate’, that which the political scientists call the ‘fourth estate’. Today this term is commonly used to describe the independent press or news media which has a strong capacity for advocacy and an unrivalled ability to frame political issues. Many analysts see and promote this estate for its ability to constrain the exercise of power by the state, especially when it joins forces with the social media – the so-called networked fourth estate.
I will ask rhetorically whether the Guyana estate is currently operating in the national interest. The influence of the media, can be pernicious and contrary to the national interest.
As we enter a new digital age, the media should be sensitive to the manner in which the media landscape is being transformed, especially with regard to directly linking ordinary citizens to those in the corridors of power. This new environment also means that there are now many more non-traditional media outlets, and this reality has created a new set of challenges for the media and those who interact with them. I make special mention of the exposure of our populace to misinformation and of their inability to distinguish fact from opinion, from propaganda or mischief. Some dangerous childhood diseases are making a comeback due to lower vaccination rates. Experts in online misinformation say that social networking and its unfiltered, algorithmically boosted dissemination of the most “engaging” posts — whether true or not — have fuelled a wide spread of anti-vaccination propaganda. One writer, Guidry, said social media amplifies these conversations and makes it easier for people to have such conversations in echo chambers that can reinforce misinformation. In a similar political vein fake political news is proliferating on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
The media therefore has a demonstrated capacity to impact the governance of nations and not always for the better. Society has been said to rely on it to monitor and even effect changes in the functioning of the various branches of government. This potential to affect the working of the institutions and therefore of democratic practice ought to place an enormous responsibility on journalists and the media to be fair and impartial. Among these responsibilities should be an unwavering commitment to substantiating claims and allegations.
There is also the need for the press to equip itself to handle complicated issues and to understand ‘the plot’. It is in that sense the training efforts of the GPA could be seen an appropriate segue. Guyana is at a stage in the defence of its territorial integrity where the plot is relatively straightforward but it is not always so and even when it is at a relatively simple stage it is clear that not all journalists comprehend it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has offered to brief key media personnel but I myself sense that the Houses feel that they understand what is going on well enough and do not need to be briefed or at least they prefer to put their own slant on things. What emerges from most media presentations on the current status certainly belies that confidence.
The ICJ problem is as follows: The 1899 Arbitral Award defines Guyana’s boundaries with Venezuela. Guyana is seeking a judgment from the ICJ on the contention by the Venezuelan Government that the Paris [the 1899 Arbitration] Award is null and void. The advisory opinion of the ICJ has the weight of the Court’s prestige and international recognition of the Court’s views. But in this case Guyana has managed to seek a judgment rather than the advisory opinion of the ICJ. If the Court accepts, failure of a party to honour an ICJ judgment may bring action by the Security Council.
Venezuela has managed to raise in the mind of many casual observers the question of the Court’s jurisdiction. Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court provides for the Court to have jurisdiction in all matters specially stipulated in treaties and conventions that are in force on the date of the institution of proceedings. In such instances, the Court may be seized by means of a written unilateral application.
In the Geneva Agreement of 1966, which was aimed at resolving the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana, Article IV (2) authorises the UN Secretary General to choose a means of settlement contained in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 33 provides:
“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”
It is Guyana’s contention that the provisions of Article IV of the Geneva Convention constitute agreement by Guyana and Venezuela to submit the matter to any forum chosen by the Secretary General under Article 33, including the ICJ [judicial settlement]. Our view is that the oft repeated requirement that both parties must agree to submit the case to the ICJ has been preempted by the Geneva Agreement.
Venezuela has said it will raise an objection to the Court’s jurisdiction. It would then be left to the Court to consider whether such consent was established in the Geneva Agreement. It should also be noted that there is provision for cases where the respondent State does not appear before the Court. However, failure by one party to appear does not prevent consideration of the case but in such a case the Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. We have been notified that oral pleadings in this regard will begin on March 23, 2020.
The other point I should like to touch is this. The matter before the Court does not directly affect the oceans, Guyana’s EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone] or the operations of companies on our shelf. The 1899 Award did not address the question of maritime space or EEZs. Indeed, there was no UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] until 1982, nearly 100 years later. On the basis of that Convention the world has agreed to divide up the oceans among the world’s states thereby enlarging those states with claims to the ocean. A state’s entitlement to ocean or maritime space depends on it having a relevant coast. Conceptually the entitlement is fairly straight-forward for coastal neighbours and islands but there are challenging details. For Guyana and its landside neighbors it is based on a line drawn from the midpoint on their land border and extending 200 miles into the sea [the EEZ]. To Guyana’s east, the position and slope of that line has already been determined. When the two states were unable to arrive at a mutual agreement it was demarcated by a 2013 UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal. It cannot now be changed by Guyana or indeed by Suriname. The line to our west with Venezuela at Punta Playa is yet to be negotiated. Taking a guide from the line to the east and the others that Venezuela has defined to its west on the shoulder of the sub-continent, the slope of the line should be North-South adjusted to allow for T&T’s and Barbados’ rights. The refusal of Venezuela to honour the land boundary that it demarcated and agreed in 1905 makes the maritime or EEZ issue relevant to the case now before the Court.
The Government of Guyana [GoG] has therefore taken the opportunity of the Court’s examination of the validity of the 1899 [Paris] Arbitration Award to have the ICJ confirm the sea-space appurtenant to Guyana’s land territory. In other words, Guyana is seeking confirmation that, in keeping with the UNCLOS, as owner of the territory from Ponta Playa to the Courantyne it enjoys all relevant sovereignty and sovereign rights over the oceans associated with its 459km long Atlantic Coast and territorial sea.
These are the kinds of questions which the Guyana media houses seem to be posing and about which they appear to be unclear.
Even as the Court has been working on this matter, the tale, distorted and untrue, is being shared with the world. Venezuela or its agents have been placing pieces in our press. Such material has, for example, been inserted by a mouthpiece of Venezuelan imperialists, ostensibly an NGO called MAPA, ‘Our Sun Rises in the Essequibo’, proclaiming its right to an area of land the Government of Venezuela never governed and on which Simon Bolivar neither ever set eyes on nor liberated. They called on the Government of Guyana to withdraw the case from the ICJ because the decision of the SG was ‘unilateral’. This material was carried without comment although Venezuela had twice concurred in formal agreements that the matter could be sent to the Court if all else failed, and all else failed both times.
President Maduro’s last statement on the occasion of the 53rd anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Agreement on Feb 17, 2019 referred to it in his tweet as, “a document that recognizes our right to Guayana Esequiba.” On that occasion he also published a picture ostensibly of the persons signing the agreement in 1966. The only problem is that the picture was not actually of British and Venezuelan negotiators but of a meeting that actually taken place in 1949, 17 years earlier.
At least one of our most widely circulated newspaper’s assertion is that the 1966 Geneva Agreement confirms the GOG’s acceptance that the 1899 Award is no longer valid and that it gave Guyana only “temporary ownership” of the Essequibo. It is also claimed that Guyana and Venezuela agreed not to explore and develop hydro-carbons in the Essequibo, on or offshore. If Guyana is bound by such an arrangement it would have had to apply to the development of the entire Orinoco basin and its delta also. There has been no such agreement. The Geneva Agreement actually makes no mention of either land transfers or of the Essequibo and the question of non-development of any area within the boundaries of the two states was limited to the period 1966-70 when a Joint Commission was to have been considering practical solutions.
It is imperative that in the face of these challenges we ensure the inculcation and enforcement of minimum/ acceptable journalistic standards. At the same time, while new technologies have brought about increased access and can facilitate greater accountability, journalists are expected to show good judgment and always keep in mind the greater societal good.
Specialised journalism which has almost disappeared in Guyana should be encouraged, as its existence allows for more informed and in-depth issue-based professionalism in areas such as health and science. Further, the need for our journalists to seek to specialise in the area of oil and gas and related services needs no elaboration.
It is, therefore, against this backdrop that I once again wish to recognise your contributions in helping to build Guyana and applaud the critical role of the Guyana Press Association and the media as a whole. I can assure you of the commitment of the Government of Guyana to safeguarding the freedom of the Press and to defending the rights of all Guyanese to freedom of expression.
