Time to demonstrate seriousness of border controversy

Dear Editor,

“The Secretary General praised the willingness of Presidents David Granger and Nicolás Maduro to uphold their countries’ tradition of dialogue, while a path toward resolution of the controversy is crafted that will be beneficial to both countries and their peoples. “The foregoing is an excerpt from the statement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon following his meeting with Presidents Granger and Maduro during last year’s United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

At that time, and even now, it remains to me unclear what the Secretary General means by “while a path toward resolution of the controversy is crafted that will bebeneficial to both countries and its peoples”. How would the resolution of the controversy be beneficial to the two countries and their peoples other than through some new arrangement(s) through which Venezuela gets something? The evidence which would be presented in the judicial process will certainly be in Guyana’s favour since Guyana’s position is firmly rooted in international law and therefore would have the current demarcations remain intact. However, there continues to be a school of thought in some circles that shared or joint exploitation of the resources of the Essequibo region including its maritime space would represent “a path toward resolution of the controversy that will bebeneficial to both countries and their peoples.” This path is unacceptable and such thinking must be countered in no uncertain terms.

At a press conference at the UN last year, President Granger said that it could not be lost on the Secretary General that the resources of the Essequibo region and the waters off its coast belong to Guyana and will be developed for the benefit ofGuyanese.

It will soon be one year since the UN Secretary General would have this issue before him to rule on a mechanism for resolving this controversy. Wednesday, I was invited to be a part of a round table discussion on the Venezuelan controversy, with Guyana and again the suggestion of joint or shared exploitation of the resources, especially Guyana’s oil and gas resources emerged as a popular school of thought, if not argument in support of ending the controversy. I posed the question whether one can expect Ban Ki-moon to rule on a mechanism before he leaves office at year’s end and the answer was a resounding no. None of the participants expect him to do so and a majority was confident he wouldn’t and perhaps is of the view he shouldn’t. It is said that former US Vice President Dick Cheney’s internal code name for the Iraq war was “Operation Iraqi Liberation”…oil. Notwithstanding the movement toward green energy, oil and gas will remain critical commodities in the conduct of international relations and geo-politics. So what does this mean for Guyana? In my view, Guyana must continue to push ahead with the development of our oil industry but we must be cognisant of the geo politics associated with this industry, particularly against the backdrop of what future governments of Venezuela and the United States may turn out to be. At yesterday’s forum, there were maps of Guyana and Venezuela mounted. The Venezuelan map did not have the “Zona Reclamacion” wording. From my reading, it seemed that the word Venezuela was spread right across the map to include the area that previously would have been identified as the “zone to be reclaimed”. If my reading is accurate, this map suggests that Venezuela has “taken back” what is not theirs.

It is clear that Venezuela is relentless in maintaining its claim. It is also clear that the Opposition in Venezuela and the Venezuelan Diaspora is convinced that the claim is valid and must be pursued. This was clear during yesterday’s forum.

I must therefore once again point to the need for Guyana to intensify its public outreach efforts to help shape public opinion in its favour. It is time that President Granger meet with the editorial board of the New York Times,

Washington Post and other influential dailies and that our embassies, consulates and Diaspora organisations reach out to various organisations such as the Council for the Americas not merely to inform and educate various audiences as to invalidity of the Venezuelan claim but to demonstrate the seriousness of this issue and the negative impact it potentially has for the future development of our country and the quality of life of Guyanese.

Regards,

Wesley Kirton