It should be useful to begin a discussion about the “Argyle Declaration”, issued at the end of the meeting between Pres Ali and Pres Maduro, by pointing out that the word “declaration” has a precise meaning in international relations. “A ‘declaration’ is generally a non-binding written instrument setting out international principles. It may be of political or moral force. Declarations are commonly drafted and approved by international organs and conferences, but they are not signed and ratified by states.” So, right up front, we should know that whatever was agreed to by the parties is not binding on them.
The question that arises, of course, is “What then is the point of declarations?” And the answer is: they may have “political or moral force” to guide the actions of the signatories and the other participants. Meaning that the participants may have political or moral reasons to either observe or break their commitments. In its prefatory statement, the Argyle Declaration states: “All the parties…reiterated their commitment to Latin America and the Caribbean remaining a Zone of Peace”. The first substantive assertion expanded on this point: “Agreed that Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States.”
Now, it must be pointed out that, to anyone not familiar with the background of the issues that brought the two presidents to the table, an implicit equivalence between Guyana and Venezuela’s position is being made on keeping the region as a “zone of peace” by abjuring threats of using force. The fact of the matter, however, is that Guyana at all times has been seeking to resolve the controversy precipitated by Venezuela over our common Essequibo border in a peaceful manner, as adumbrated by the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which was a treaty – and therefore binding – which Venezuela had signed. For over fifty years, we had engaged in the deliberations of a “Mixed Commission”; used the UN Secty-General’s “Good Offices” process to mediate discussions between the two countries, and finally had the UN Secretary-General choose a dispute resolution mechanism – the ICJ – as detailed in Article 33 of the UN Charter to make a definitive decision.
Yet, even though there was no ambiguity in the procedure followed by Guyana and agreed to by the ICJ, it is Venezuela that has refused to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction to pronounce on the 1899 Arbitral Award. As such, it engaged in an act of violence against the Guyanese State when President Maduro conducted a referendum to annex Essequibo, and subsequently made several moves to make the decision a fait accompli. Maybe it is the nature of diplomatic engagements to avoid calling a spade a spade, but given the history of Venezuela in general on their border controversy, and with Maduro in particular, it was not surprising for Venezuela to declare that its position was vindicated.
The second substantive assertion of the declaration says: “Agreed that any controversies between the two States will be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement dated February 17, 1966”. But with Venezuela and Maduro’s refusal to backtrack on their rejection of the ICJ’s jurisdiction to pronounce conclusively on matters of international law – which include treaties such as the Geneva Agreement – it is difficult to comprehend how they will agree on any formulation of international law that goes against them.
The 5th and 7th substantive assertions say: “Agreed to continue dialogue on any other pending matters of mutual importance to the two countries (and) “Agreed to establish immediately a joint commission of the Foreign Ministers and technical persons from the two States to address matters as mutually agreed. An update from this joint commission will be submitted to the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela within three months.”
From this, it would appear that Venezuela has furthered its single-minded insistence that the border controversy must be settled through bilateral negotiations – call it “negotiations”, or what you may.
