One of the many ways in which the state can show respect for the sacrifice made by the five servicemen who perished in Wednesday’s tragic crash: Brigadier (Rtd) Gary Beaton, Colonel Michael Shahoud, Lieutenant Colonel Mike Charles, Lieutenant Colonel, Sean Welcome and Sergeant Jason Khan is to ensure that there is a full and independent investigation of the circumstances and the condition of the helicopter to ensure that there is never a recurrence.
Another way would be to ensure that the objective of the mission they gave their lives for – the protection of and maintenance of sovereignty over the Essequibo – is given full recognition at Thursday’s scheduled meeting between Presidents Ali and Maduro in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
In a statement on Saturday and in a Facebook address yesterday, President Ali repeatedly said that the land boundary is not up for discussion and that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) track for the resolution of the border controversy is sacrosanct. We accept those assurances with the caveat that summits of the type set for Thursday, encouraged by third parties of varying interests and motivations, can have unintended consequences and that Guyana has to be on guard.
There are many things about this meeting that are problematic and unwholesome. The first is that it handsomely rewards President Maduro for the flagrant aggression he has displayed towards Guyana since oil was discovered here in 2015 and more recently with the launch of a quixotic referendum in which he seeks to annex Essequibo. Far from standing down he has expanded his transgressions by blatantly violating two provisional measures announced by the ICJ on December 1st i.e. doing nothing to interfere with Guyana’s control over Essequibo and not complicating the substantive case over the border controversy before the ICJ. One would have thought that the worthies in CARICOM and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean (CELAC) countries who have inspired this meeting would have discerned that rewarding such aggression is a threat to all law-abiding nations and that Mr Maduro should have been made to modulate his behaviour if he wanted to engage within the comity of nations. It is then to be expected that Mr Maduro will present the same truculence at this meeting in St Vincent and that would be the end of it.
Second, summits of this type – at the point of a crisis – come with the expectation that there is something to give, something to negotiate. Guyana has nothing to give here. It has behaved exemplarily in any every forum connected to the border controversy. Venezuela on the other hand, President Maduro and Vice President Rodriguez have done the diametric opposite. They have operated in violation of the UN Charter by seeking to acquire territory that has been the subject of a controversy that has now entered the remit of the ICJ, a principal organ of the UN and which was made to endure the extraordinary circumstance of Ms Rodriguez presenting before it while at the same time saying Venezuela did not recognise its jurisdiction. The Geneva Agreement was carefully crafted with the objective of providing a pathway for the settlement of the controversy over Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 Arbitral Award was null and void. That is the process now before the ICJ and which is immutable as far as this country is concerned. What does Venezuela now seek? An agreement to settle the controversy over the controversy about the 1899 Arbitral award? That would be ludicrous. President Maduro needs a way to dismount the jaguar he has mounted but Guyana is in no position to oblige.
Third, one cannot but assume that some members of CELAC and CARICOM have no understanding of the decades of this controversy and so they reflexively alight on the standard line about the importance of the two leaders talking or they are simply consumed by the realpolitik of their own circumstances. The first known hint of a CELAC/CARICOM initiative came from Barbadian Prime Minister Mottley with the convenor of Thursday’s meeting, St Vincent Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves at her side following their return from the CARICOM-Saudi Arabian summit in Riyadh.
She had said in part “…we understand that where there is not the appropriate opportunity to keep temperatures down then things can happen that go beyond our control. I think it is fair to say Ralph is chair of CELAC (the Community of Caribbean and Latin American Countries) and (Dominican Prime Minister) Roosevelt (Skerrit) is chair of CARICOM and I have every confidence in my two chairs of both CELAC and CARICOM that we can keep the temperatures down. Even if there is not the settled outcome on the dispute that will be traditionally expected”.
Even then her remarks were unsettling as she did not recognise that Guyana had become the target of unremitting aggression from Venezuela. She made it appear as if both countries had contributed to the crisis.
This grave flaw is evident in the correspondence of December 9 by PM Gonsalves – a longstanding confidant of Venezuelan leaders – to Presidents Ali and Maduro. Apart from burnishing the credentials of Mr Maduro by stating that the Venezuelan people advised “overwhelmingly” in the referendum when that is hotly disputed, his letter refers “matters consequential to the border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela”. What matters can these be when Georgetown has already said that the border controversy and the ICJ are not on the agenda. It could only be the aggression engendered in Venezuela’s response to the trajectory of the border controversy case at the ICJ and that is how it should have been expressed.
He then contextualises the meeting by the need for a de-escalation when only Venezuela could be faulted.
He waxes philosophical as he is given to with the following paragraph which suggests that “old controversies” have to be addressed.
“Experience has taught humanity that it is mature, wise, and preferable for leaders of nations which are in conflict, to speak to each other calmly, respectfully, and with patience, in order to avoid an escalation into threats or the use of force. To be sure, the resolution of old controversies in challenging contemporary times is never easy; for, leaders it is strenuous, but a strenuous life pursued in peace is to be preferred to one of ignoble ease in perpetual conflict…”, he wrote.
Well, this particular “old” controversy is on one path and only one path – the ICJ – and PM Gonsalves and his guest must be made aware of that. Mr Gonsalves then invokes the need for Solomonic wisdom and adds “There is thus much for each of you to raise and/or discuss on matters consequential to the border controversy even as you respect the advice, or more, of your respective peoples and Parliament/National Assembly…”
President Ali must be careful at this meeting not to be led off the path that Guyana is on i.e. that after decades of Venezuelan malevolence, aggression and intrusions the final settlement of this controversy is on the horizon.
The President needs to show that the entire country is behind him and it would be meet for him to be accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition to these talks and we hope that he will reach out to Mr Norton.
If this meeting does not result in Venezuela resiling from its outrageous campaign to annexe Essequibo in extravagant violation of the ICJ then at least it would have shown that Guyana was prepared to go to all lengths to restore a measure of normalcy in relations with Caracas. That would suffice and redound to the country’s credit as it steadfastly remains on the ICJ path.
