Guyana on claim | Luis Britto Garcia

Late declaration of nullity. The Paris Award, void due to lack of motivation, and Mallet-Prevost's confession, according to which said agreement suffers from a defect of consent because it was the result of blackmail by the Russian arbitrator Martens, follow decades of formal protests but no action concrete. The Venezuelan authorities should have denounced the manifest deficiencies of substance and form of the Award as soon as it was issued, but they did not do so. The lawyer Arnoldo García Iturbe confided to me that his father, Dr. Ibrahim García, magistrate of the Federal Court and of Cassation, had told him that the dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez summoned him in the mid-XNUMXs together with other jurists to know the opinion on a possible military recovery of the Llanos de Casanare and Guyana Esequiba. Neither project was implemented.

Agreement in Geneva. On November 12, 1962, the Chancellor of Rómulo Betancourt's democratic action government, Marcos Falcón Briceño, before the XVIII Assembly of the United Nations denounced and declared the Arbitration Award of October 3, 1899, null and void, and promoted a meeting between representatives of Venezuela, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and Great Britain to advance the claim.

  1. In this way, the so-called 1966 Geneva Agreement (United Nations - Treaty Series 1966) is reached, which provides in its article I that two representatives be appointed by the United Kingdom and two by Venezuela to form a Mixed Commission destined to “seek satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom that arose as a consequence of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitration Award of 1899 on the border between Venezuela and British Guyana is null and void ”. The parity of representatives guarantees that there will be no such arrangement, but rather a systematic tie. Article V seems to prolong said indecision by stating that “nothing contained in this agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver or diminution by Venezuela, the United Kingdom or British Guyana of any bases for claiming territorial sovereignty in the territories of Venezuela. or British Guyana or of any rights that had previously been asserted, or of claims of such territorial sovereignty or as prejudging their position with respect to their recognition or non-recognition of a right to, claim or basis of claim by any of them on such territorial sovereignty ”. (http://www.consulvenevigo.es/subido/ACUERDO%20GINEBRA%20ONU%201966.pdf)
    On this point, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Agreement of July 15, 2015 ruled: “That the Geneva Treaty of February 17, 1966 is the most appropriate way at the time to obtain the nullity of the Arbitration Award of Paris of October 3, 1899; the nullity of the Washington Treaty of February 2, 1897 and the revision of the merits of the border controversy ”. (Directive of the Supreme Court of Justice, Caracas, July 16, 2015, at http://www.tsj.gob.ve)
  2. Independent Guyana and dependent
    and dependent
  3. The Geneva Agreement, in which one of the parties is the British Empire, is celebrated shortly before the Cooperative Republic of Guyana declares its independence, as a late result of the decolonization process that began in 1945. It is a relative decolonization: the Ancient metropolises preserve as far as possible the economic and political dominance over their former dependencies, and with them the network of interests of their businessmen and that of complicities of their diplomatic agents. The rights of Venezuela will meet with a wall similar to the one established by the empire.
  4. Freezing in Port of Spain
  5. Faced with the foreseeable absence of a satisfactory agreement for both parties, the Social-Christian government of Rafael Caldera and his Foreign Minister Arístides Calvani signed in 1970 the Protocol of Port of Spain between Guyana, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, by which it was "frozen", for a term of 12 years, part of the Geneva Agreement.
  6. Procrastination is the art of avoiding responsibility. For social-Christian governments and democratic action, it is preferable for the controversy to fade into oblivion than to assume the risk of a confrontation that provokes another possible unfavorable decision. The diplomatic inactivity of the parties prolongs the virtual freeze indefinitely. During that period, the former British Guyana, which had become a Cooperative Republic of Guyana since 1966, occupies territories, consolidates positions, grants concessions for the exploitation of resources in disputed areas, and finally appeals to the International Court of Justice. It is no longer an imperial colony, but an unlimited field of action for the interests of empires.
  7. In 1983, the social-Christian government of Luis Herrera Campins proposed direct negotiation to Guyana, to which it responded by raising three options: bring the controversy before the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or the International Court of Justice, ways that Venezuela denies.
  8. The same year, Venezuela raised the border conflict with the Secretary General of the United Nations, as provided for in Article IV, paragraph 2 of the Geneva Agreement, which provides for invoking Article 33 of the United Nations Charter regarding the means of peaceful dispute solution.
  9. In 1987 the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and the Republic of Venezuela agreed to apply the good offices method, which has been put into practice since 1989 through a good officiant chosen and accepted by the parties, in charge of bringing both governments closer to the so that they reach a satisfactory solution for both parties. It is difficult for the solution to a political and territorial plunder of such magnitude to find an arrangement to the liking of the opponents. The cooperative Republic of Guyana, meanwhile, occupies spaces, exploits territories, grants concessions and summons the greed of the empires on the zone in claim.

 

Sponsored links