Dear Editor,
This letter is about President Ali’s meeting with Nicholas Maduro, apart from the outcome of the meeting and any other ramifications such as the exclusion of the United Nations Secretary General. It is a surprising and questionable development that President Irfaan Ali has agreed to meet with Nicholas Maduro in an apparent series of meetings. Ali has chosen to engage in diplomatic meetings despite Venezuela’s escalating aggression. This decision raises significant concerns about the potential consequences of such a decision, particularly in the context of the matter currently pending before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It also raises questions about the advice that President Ali is getting, as well as his own judgement.
Firstly, the matter is currently under the scrutiny of the ICJ, which is the final and correct legal avenue that will provide a just resolution. By engaging in bilateral talks with Maduro while the case is still before the ICJ, President Ali is risking undermining the credibility of the international legal process. Venezuela, under the leadership of President Maduro, has consistently expressed its refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ in this matter. The Venezuelan government has argued that the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which established the framework for resolving the border issue – which Guyana insists is not a ”dispute,” but a land grab – is null and void. Now, Venezuela apparently seeks to reverse that position.
President Ali’s decision to meet with Maduro in this context sends a mixed signal and may inadvertently legitimise Venezuela’s rejection of the ICJ’s authority, thereby undermining the principles of international law and diplomacy. Furthermore, the timing of the meeting raises eyebrows, as it comes at a crucial juncture in the legal proceedings. The ICJ is expected to deliver its judgment on the matter sometime soon. The international community, including Guyana’s allies, have consistently supported the ICJ process as the appropriate mechanism for resolving the border dispute. President Ali’s decision to engage in direct talks with President Maduro may strain Guyana’s diplomatic relations with its allies, who have vested interests in upholding the integrity of international law. Additionally, meeting with Maduro at this juncture may inadvertently grant Venezuela a platform to advance its narrative and exert influence over the proceedings.
President Ali should be cautious not to provide any semblance of legitimacy to Venezuela’s claims, especially given its refusal to acknowledge the ICJ’s jurisdiction. While diplomatic dialogue is often crucial for resolving conflicts, President Ali’s decision to meet with President Maduro during the ongoing border issue before the ICJ legitimately raises serious concerns. As such, many analysts believe that President Ali should not have been lured into what is being referred to as a diplomatic ambush. Guyana has gained nothing from the meeting of December 14. Arguably, Venezuela has gained a huge diplomatic advantage.
Sincerely,
Mark DaCosta
