Guyana has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, for provisional measures given the decision of the Venezuelan government to seek a mandate from its people to seize a large portion of Guyanese territory.
The ICJ will hold public hearings on November 14 on Guyana’s application. Already though, Guyana’s lawmakers have strongly denounced the referendum set for December 3, 2023, through a series of declarations at an Extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly on Monday.
So why is Guyana against this referendum?
“… in normal circumstances, one wouldn’t give a hoot what another country decides to do by way of a referendum,” says Carl Greenidge, Advisor on Borders and Guyana’s Co-agent in the border case against Venezuela.
“A referendum is a little bit like the exercise of freedom (wherein) your right to do and say things ends very close to me if the exercise of those rights affect me.”
But in this case, Mr Greenidge says, Venezuela’s referendum calls on the “Venezuelan electorate to pronounce on matters dealing with treaties, matters of the Court and with the well-being of Guyanese.”
Venezuela’s referendum will, essentially, ask the country’s citizens to vote on five questions.
The first two questions are of a legal nature and ask citizens how they define the Essequibo region that Venezuela claims from Guyana; the third is about Venezuela’s position before the ICJ; the fourth question asks whether citizens oppose Guyana’s move to search for and produce in the associated area offshore; and fifth, is about the creation of a Venezuelan state made up of Guyana’s Essequibo region and granting Venezuelan citizenship to the people living in the region.
Guyana rejects these questions, particularly questions one, three and five. It was noted that the last question in particular insinuates an annexation of Guyana’s territory- a move in blatant violation of various regional and international agreements.
Further, Guyana’s Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC on Monday pointed out that the country’s referendum could compromise the ongoing Court proceedings involving the two states.
Guyana is currently before the ICJ, seeking a final, binding judgement reaffirming the 1899 Arbitral Award that established the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. Should Guyana get the ruling it hopes for, it will prove once and for all time that the Essequibo region belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela.
Because of all the concerns surrounding the referendum, Guyana is asking the ICJ for its help. Mr. Greenidge explained why this is necessary.
“The Court is being asked, not so much to stop them from having a referendum, but to ensure that they know and to ensure that the referendum doesn’t have provisions which give the Venezuelan public the mistaken view that they have the right to decide on other citizens’ faith to decide on other citizens’ faith, citizens outside of the borders of Venezuela in defiance of world opinion, in defiance of world practice and in defiance of the obligations that Venezuela has as a signatory of agreements that exist.”
But what if Venezuela still goes ahead with that referendum?
At that point, Mr. Greenidge said it is up to the World Court to decide “how best it can uphold the rule of law” in face of any further actions from Venezuela.
Guyana has issued repeated statements denouncing the aggressive new measures taken by Venezuela in furtherance of its groundless and unlawful territorial claim to Guyana’s Essequibo Region.
Guyana insists, as does CARICOM, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and Organization of American States, and the entire international community, that the controversy over the validity of the Arbitral Award and the land boundary must be resolved by the International Court of Justice, which will assure a just, peaceful, binding and permanent solution to this matter, in accordance with international law.
The statement issued by Adviser to the Guyanese Government on Borders and Co-Agent to the ICJ’s current Proceedings, Mr Carl Greenidge falls short of the strong targeted position articulated bv the AG Nandlal during the Extraordinary Sitting of the National Assembly held on Monday 6 November 2023.
They both should be singing from the same hymn book especially Mr Greenidge.
AG Nandlal identified the negative implications the various texts contained in the five questions posed in the Venezuelan Consultative Referendum that have serious consequences for the breach and violation for Guyana’s sovereignty, the proceedings before the ICJ, the 1966 Agreement as well for the tenets of international law.
This is what he said:
The first two questions are of a legal nature and ask citizens how they define the Essequibo region that Venezuela claims from Guyana; the third is about Venezuela’s position before the ICJ; the fourth question asks whether citizens oppose Guyana’s move to search for and produce in the associated area offshore; and fifth, is about the creation of a Venezuelan state made up of Guyana’s Essequibo region and granting Venezuelan citizenship to the people living in the area.
Guyana is of the considered view, that the impending referendum slated for the 3rd of December, 2023 is intended to and will compromise the legal proceedings pending at the International Court of Justice, if not subvert the legal process altogether and prejudice its outcome,”
Mr Greenidge did not quite clearly address the issue of the negative impact that these five referendum questions can have on the status of the ICJ as the final and only arbiter to decide on the bilateral boundary in the Essequibo Region.
The Guyanese Permanent Rep to the UN Ambassador Birkett had this to say on the exclusive role and function of the ICJ in determining the current border engagement and controversy:
“…Accordingly, if Venezuela truly believes that the best, or the only, way to resolve the controversy is by adherence to the 1966 Geneva Agreement, then it should adhere to that Agreement and plead its case to the ICJ, and accept the decision of the Court, when it is issued, as a final and binding settlement of the controversy.
Guyana will not agree to any procedure that contradicts the express provisions of the Geneva Agreement and bypasses the Court (Referendum and diologue), which is the only means of settlement that is now authorized by Article IV of that Agreement…”
Venezuela has deliberately misconstrued the 1966 Agreement by restricting the exchanges to dialogue and diplomacy which it can control and use coercive action against Guyana and neutralise the ICJ because it has no case to put that is convincing and authoritative in its content .
But Guyana will have none of this because events have overtaken this option because according to Foreign Minster Todd this is joining Venezuela on the wrong side of international law and rejection of the role and function of the ICJ as well as its locus standi in this litigation to give a judgment/determination and ruling based on and underpinned by the tenets of international law on the legal status of the 1899 Award and the boundary that it established making the Essequibo Region fully integrated into then British Guiana’s territory of 89,000 square miles (160,000 square kilometres)
All is said and done.Lets prepare for any disruptions to our Christmas season.
Rest assured that ” knock got knock back”.
Example Palestine and Isarael war.
So we must prepare well,so help us God.
Who God bless no man curse.
Don Gomes m.s.2011