Venezuela border controversy: Guyana came away as winner from Argyle Summit – AG Nandlall

– says ball now in Venezuela’s court to stay true to commitments

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, who accompanied President Dr Irfaan Ali and his team during his Thursday meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro at the Argyle summit, has made it clear that Guyana walked away from the summit as the winner.
In a missive in which he urged the public to be more circumspect in their utterings on the Venezuela border controversy, Nandlall noted that Guyana retained many of its positions and gained even more triumphs in the Argyle declaration.
This nine-point declaration, issued after Thursday’s meeting at Argyle International Airport in St Vincent and the Grenadines, saw Guyana and Venezuela committing to not engage in hostilities and to work towards restoring peaceful neighbourly relations. According to Nandlall, they will have to wait and see if these commitments are kept.
“Guyana came away from the Argyle engagement without ceding any of its positions but gaining much. We now have to wait and see whether the commitments made on paper will convert themselves into actions. In the regrettable event, they are not, their paper expression will only serve to solidify Guyana’s position for future engagements,” Nandlall wrote.

The Attorney General meanwhile made mention of criticisms in some sections of society, on the word ‘dispute’ being used in the declaration. While Guyana does not acknowledge the border controversy as a ‘dispute’ since this was settled by the 1899 Arbitral Award, Nandlall explained why it is contained in the declaration and noted that even the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has used this terminology.
“While historically, there was an insistence on the avoidance of the term ‘dispute’ in reference to the issue at hand, the matter has since evolved. It has been submitted by Guyana to the ICJ for adjudication and the Court has assumed jurisdiction over the matter.”
“The jurisdiction of a Court of law is activated only to resolve legal disputes, not controversies. Indeed, there is a whole school of jurisprudential thought that compels a court to decline jurisdiction if there is no real or bona fide dispute between the parties before it,” he explained.
Nandlall pointed out that when the ICJ issued its orders granting Guyana the Provisional Measures it sought against Venezuela’s referendum, the Court itself used the terms “dispute” and “territory in dispute.” Meanwhile, Nandlall also warned commentators on the controversy to be mindful of the terminology they use, noting that reckless comments can harm Guyana in the long run.
“In an earlier post, I cautioned against reckless speculative pontification on this matter. I hereby reiterate those admonitions. Similar loose public statements harmed us in our border matter with the Republic of Suriname. Those who are au fait with the facts of that matter would confirm this,” Nandlall said.

“More significantly, many would have seen that President Nicolas Maduro had with him at the meeting, several volumes of documents. Many of those were compilations of public statements made on this matter, critical commentaries on the operations of Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) and the several legal proceedings filed in relation thereto.”
Nandlall pointed out that Venezuela extracted all these comments from the local media. According to the Attorney General, these are materials that Venezuela has been using to bolster their false narrative that Guyanese are not benefitting from the resources of Essequibo.
On Thursday, December 14, 2023, in Argyle, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, His Excellency Irfaan Ali, President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and His Excellency Nicolas Maduro, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela held discussions on matters consequential to the territory in dispute between their two countries.
After more than eight hours of engagements, Presidents Ali and Maduro agreed that Guyana and Venezuela, directly or indirectly, would not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstance, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States.
In a joint declaration, the Heads of these two States also agreed that any controversy between the two States would be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement dated February 17, 1966.
The two countries have also committed to the pursuance of good neighbourliness, peaceful coexistence, and the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean. It was also agreed that both States would refrain, whether by words or deeds, from escalating any conflict or disagreement arising from any controversy.