Dear Editor,
Recently, with all the jingoism and bluster emanating from our neighbour to the West, a number of soi-disant “experts” have emerged from the woodwork, pontificating and pronouncing on various courses of action to be pursued, when in fact they are misleading the unsuspecting public.
The latest of these that has come to my attention, because of the erroneous nature of his writing, is Mr. Robin Singh, who ironically hails from a lineage of jurists. In his letter of November 14, he supports the proposition that ‘a “sea lane” could be given to Venezuela in exchange for a full and final settlement of the Land boundaries as they exist’. Well Shiver Me Timbers, if international relations was so simplistic and an aggressive and more powerful neighbouring country would settle for a sliver of waterway ‘in exchange’ for 160,000 square km of resource-rich land that it has been illegally claiming for 60 years now, then we can all head to the bar to celebrate.
But, it gets worse: he says that ‘a “sea lane” does not interfere’ with our EEZ. No problem there, except that there is no need to work out any deal or concession to give any neighbouring state a ‘sea lane”, as Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that, even closer to the coastline than in the EEZ ‘…ships of all States, whether coastal or landlocked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea’. Ergo, whether a ship is Venezuelan, Colombian, Trinidadian, Nigerian, Malaysian, or whatever nationality, it can pass through our waters, without any deal or concession being offered, be it a merchant vessel, fishing trawler or even a warship, so long as its conduct while so doing is not prejudicial to Guyana.
In support of this unnecessary proposition of a quid pro quo sea lane, he cites a number of ICJ cases that he says establishes the principle that “the land dominates the sea”. Permit me to advise your readers, as well as Mr. Singh, that those cases all refer to disputes in straits between 2 states (where sea lanes and traffic separation schemes are normally required), or islands off the coasts of two states. They are of limited to zero value in providing guidance or precedent in a location off of a relatively even and unencumbered coastline such as the Essequibo. Indeed the principle under reference is better located in the Articles of UNCLOS. That Venezuela has never become a party to this Convention does not gainsay the fact that many of its Articles had already come to be regarded as representing customary international law opposable to all States in 1982, when UNCLOS was opened for signature, much less four decades on, in 2023.
Mr. Singh is of the naïve and misguided view that had there been an agreement on a sea lane, ‘our land borders would be settled and our oil would be safely ensconced within our EEZ cocoon, free from challenge or military threat’. In my experience as a diplomat in the Guyana Foreign Service, I have never encountered a situation where two parties agree on what is to be offered and, without an unequivocal written statement of the terms of acceptance from the other side so as to constitute an agreement, that circumstance could be recorded and transformed so that ‘our land borders would be settled’. Moreover, we are dealing with a country which has disowned the 1905 Agreement and the settled map which depicted the 1899 Arbitral award; disavowed the 1966 Geneva Agreement; and shown disregard for both the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice: Ms. Alice in Wonderland would appreciate this, I am sure!
Let me remind Mr. Singh that as regards the ‘oil…safely ensconced within our EEZ cocoon’, that resource is normally found in the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas. While the EEZ extends for 200 miles offshore and Guyana’s discoveries to date are about 100 miles inland of that extremity, UNCLOS refers in Article 81 to drilling on the Continental Shelf, not the EEZ. Finally, Mr. Singh’s subsequent unpatriotic offering about discrediting the Geneva Agreement – the sole existing legal basis which either Guyana or Venezuela can utilise for a full and final third-party settlement of the controversy – which your Sunday editorial has dealt with condignly – is not worthy of my time, my energy nor the exercise of my mental faculties.
Sincerely,
Neville Bissember
