Venezuela border controversy: Venezuela’s claims to Essequibo are based on fallacies – Greenidge

– says Spanish-speaking nation has erroneous interpretation of Geneva Agreement

One of the challenges facing Guyana in its border controversy with Venezuela is the fact that the Spanish-speaking country has based its entire claim to Essequibo on fallacies and there is a divergence when it comes to the facts.
This was according to Guyana’s agent in the border controversy before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Carl Greenidge, during a Panel Discussion and Public Awareness Session at The Bishops’ High School, who added that Venezuela has a completely different interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement to everyone else.
Asked about the challenges facing Guyana in resolving the controversy, Greenidge identified not only Venezuela’s deceptions but its duplicity as well.
“You have a party on the other side that commits itself to things by way of treaties or agreements and then denies that it does so. So that is one side. In looking at the mechanisms available to us, the Geneva Agreement, we find that every day, it is cited by Venezuela. And yet, their interpretation of what the Agreement says conforms to no interpretation that anybody else has.”
“The Geneva Agreement makes no mention of Essequibo. It does not make any mention of a transfer of land to Venezuela. Nowhere does it say that Venezuela has to approve what Guyana does within Guyana’s borders. And yet, in spite of all of that, a good deal of Venezuela’s presentations to the rest of the world and the justification for disputing what is taking place rests on those fallacies,” Greenidge said.

Venezuela has alleged, among other things, that the 1899 Arbitral Award should be null and void. It has based these claims on the writings of one Severo Mallet-Prevost, a member of the Venezuelan delegation at the 1899 arbitration. Mallet-Prevost alleged in a letter, written shortly after he was given a Venezuelan national award and opened in 1949 only after his death, that there was fraud in the 1899 arbitration. However, these claims have never stood up to scrutiny.
“But in so far as we’re aware that is where they pinned their argument, that was even rejected in November last by our lawyers, at the Hague. Suggesting that this was speculation. They had not submitted any information. And so, the Court is not in a position to act on what has been aired,” Greenidge pointed out.
“If common facts aren’t shared by the two sides, or recognised or accepted, it makes it a lot more difficult. But in the end, the problem is one side has in their mind that they will not stop bullying, as it were, until such time as they get some land. And we agree that on the basis of law, Venezuela has no rights to the territory it’s claiming. In 1899, the heart of the dispute with Venezuela was about the mouth and estuary of the Orinoco River. Not of Essequibo.”
Guyana’s Spanish-speaking neighbour has laid claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass in the Essequibo region, and to a portion of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in which nearly 11 billion barrels of oil have been discovered largely by United States oil giant ExxonMobil.
After years of failed good offices process via the United Nations (UN), Guyana is seeking a final and binding judgement from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to reinforce that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains valid and binding on all parties, as well as legal affirmation that Guyana’s Essequibo region, which contains much of the country’s natural resources, belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela.
The Guyana Government has declared its commitment to resolving this longstanding border controversy with Venezuela through the legal process at the World Court. This position was also reaffirmed by Guyana’s National Assembly in a unanimous vote.
Over the past few weeks, Guyana has been informing regional and international partners of a referendum planned by Venezuela for December 3, which has been criticised by the United States, Caricom, and the Organisation of American States (OAS), as well as several other nations in the Region, including Brazil, for seeking to, among other things, gain a national consensus to annex Essequibo.
In addition to its substantive case, Guyana is currently seeking an injunction from the ICJ against Venezuela’s efforts to annex Essequibo via the December 3 referendum. Following the determination of Guyana’s application against the referendum, hearings on the case’s merits are the next stage. A final decision on the substantive case might not come for years. (G-3)