Any action to ‘aggravate or extend’ Guyana/ Venezuela border controversy should be avoided – UN SG

3

The United Nations (UN) Secretary General António Guterres says that any action which will either “aggravate” or “extend” the ongoing Guyana/ Venezuela border controversy should be avoided, particularly now that the matter is squarely before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Mr. Guterres, in a statement, is said to be following the “recent escalation of tension” between the states with concern. He, however, urged both parties to act in “good faith.”

Guyana has criticised Venezuela for its attempts to hold a consultative referendum, to be held on December 3, in Venezuela where the government will seek the support of citizens in continuance of its claim of Guyana’s Essequibo region.

Guyana views the move as an affront to the ongoing juridical process currently before the ICJ, which is also called the World Court. Next, the ICJ will hear arguments against this referendum from Guyana.

The Secretary- General also noted that the ICJ is where the controversy should be settled.

“In January 2018, after carefully analysing developments in the good offices process that had taken place over the preceding years, the Secretary-General, in the exercise of the power and responsibility conferred on him by the 1966 Geneva Agreement, chose the International Court of Justice as the means that was next to be used for the solution of the border controversy between the two countries.

“The controversy is now before the International Court of Justice. The Secretary-General does not express a view on matters that are the subject of ongoing judicial proceedings,” the statement noted.

The borders of Guyana and Venezuela were determined by an arbitral tribunal on October 3, 1899, and Venezuela inherited 13,000 square kilometres of Guyana’s territory (then under British rule).

The ICJ already found that it has the jurisdiction to hear the border controversy case and Guyana believes it will get a favourable ruling.

Advertisement _____
3 Comments
  1. Lynden Mona says

    Gorden Mosley ! he is an aggravated and provocative. on the situation . NOT A BLADE OG GRASS , every morning ! disgusting!

  2. Lynden Mona says

    the culprit is Gordon Mosley every morning NOT A BLADE OF GRASS . Disgusting !

  3. Stephen Monohar Kangal says

    I have always maintained that Venezuela’s and not Guyanese, contrary to this UNSG’s Statement, recent display of activist and aggressive unilateralism to increase the tension on the border issue that is before the ICJ also disrespects and undermines the Office of the Secretary-General of the UN on whose judgment the issue was referred to in 2018 to the ICJ for its final, legislative, legal and equitable determination as prescribed by the 1966 Agreement.

    Why must the SG lump Guyana with Venezuela’s sabre-rattling when it is the latter that is placing a spanner in the works of the ICJ, increasing instability, rejecting the adjudicative process of the ICJ having failed twice to discredit the ICJ’s judicial process and locus standi of ICJ to preside over and finally determine and remove this sore in Guyana-Venezuela relations?
    It is Venezuela’s premature and injudicious introduction of a most threatening, illegal, outlandish Consultative Referendum set for consideration on 3 December next that is exclusively ramping up tension and causing the ICJ to meet in Emergency Session on 14 November to consider issuing an injunctive relief against Venezuela at Guyana’s request to hold its hand on its domestic referendum because it is inconsistent with and infringes the current proceedings before the ICJ, is a calculated and deliberate affront to prejudice and pre-judge the competence of the ICJ on the case before it and also violates several provisions of the UN Charter that prohibit the use and/or threat of force to settle disputes extra-judiciously and upset the peace and order balance existing in the Caribbean Region and Basin.
    It appears the Mr Guterres is following the lead set by PM Mottley of Barbados who blamed both parties for the “noises ” as she downplays the liquidation threat being faced by a fellow Caricom member.
    The SG “… is said to be following the “recent escalation of tension” between the states with concern. He, however, urged both parties to act in “good faith…”
    Guyana the respondent and target is:
    1. acting in total undiluted good faith in this matter;
    2. while adhering rigidly to the current judicial process;
    3. but also responding as it must;
    4. in a most civil and democratically-determined manner;
    5. to highlight to the international and its domestic community its predicament;
    6 while also seeking cover from the ICJ by way of the request for the issuance of an injunctive relief;
    7. to prevent Venezuela from doing anything or taking any action that can constitute acting in bad faith;
    8. and rejection of the role and function of the ICJ as its Consultative Referendum indeed symbolises and would validly imply.

    “In January 2018, after carefully analysing developments in the good offices process that had taken place over the preceding years, the Secretary-General, in the exercise of the power and responsibility conferred on him by the 1966 Geneva Agreement, chose the International Court of Justice as the means that was next to be used for the solution of the border controversy between the two countries…”
    Venezuela must take due note of and respect this affirmation issued by the Office of the UNSG who is taking and re-admitting responsibility for referring the matter to the ICJ in accordance with the terms of the 1966 Agreement when extensive diplomacy, unrestricted dialogue and his well intentioned dispassionate good offices role failed to bring about a negotiated settlement.
    It must cease misinterpreting the 1966 Agreement to suit its own militaristic and expansionist agenda.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.