Dear Editor,
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its provisional ruling on December 1, 2023, stated by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on March 29, 2018, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (hereinafter “Guyana”) instituted proceedings against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “Venezuela”) with respect to a dispute concerning “the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, of 3 October 1899”.
It is therefore perplexing to see MP Amanza Walton-Desir objecting to the use of the word ‘dispute’ in the Argyle Agreement. She has said, “As far as Guyanese are concerned, there is no “territory in dispute”, and to allow such a description, such verbiage places Guyana at a distinct disadvantage.”
I like the emotion and sentiment expressed by Walton-Desir; however, they have no place in arguments outside of the domestic sphere; the ICJ provisional orders are binding on Guyana and Venezuela, and its use of the word ‘dispute’ did/does not negatively affect our case.
The Argyle Agreement is a framework for communication that is non-binding. Should Venezuela attempt to use it to further its claim to the Essequibo County, Guyana can and will walk away from it without consequence.
The Argyle Agreement gives both countries a vital line of communication at a time when our armies are separated by a few metres and, importantly, “Agreed that Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances…” These are vital safeguards for our people, and is the main feature of the agreement. It is diplomatic dialogue at its finest definition, and is a triumph for all involved.
“Argyle” allows Guyanese to breathe a sigh of relief with the significant easing of tensions and the removal of the threat of physical conflict. The attempt by MP Walton-Desir to criticize the agreement and to insinuate that its language puts Guyana at a disadvantage is fear-mongering and political opportunism at its worst.
Guyana’s political Opposition was invited to participate in the talks, but declined. Had they attended, they would have had ample opportunity to raise concerns about the word ‘dispute’, and – no doubt – someone would have shown them the ICJ ruling to assist with their decision-making.
Editor, Argyle exposes, to quote Ms. Walton-Desir, “the intellectually lazy”, who are not reading the material before the ICJ, or its decisions, and are using emotional arguments in a sphere where one should be fully informed, strictly logical, and circumspect, especially with dissenting language.
I suggest such persons confine themselves to singing ‘Not a blade of grass’, and leave the work to those willing to do the hard yards.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
