Now is the time for legal interpretations

Oct 29, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The SN Editorial of October 21st, 2008 asked a very important question: “What is behind Suriname’s military braggadocio?”  The answer is competition for resources, power and regional importance.
The border area in Berbice, near the Corentyne River, is extremely crucial to Guyana’s economy.  Is a stronger and wealthier Guyana acceptable to Suriname?
The answer to this question will unravel the thought processes behind the Surinamese actions. After years of falsely declaring that the Eagle and Wishbone oil exploration targets were in Surinamese territory, the Government of Suriname had the difficult task of selling to their electorate the decision of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
A well-researched article by Arlene Munro in the SN dated October 17, 2002 established the respective claims.  Munroe stated that “the Guyana Government bases its claims on maps which were printed in British Guiana in 1913 and 1924, which placed the boundary between the two colonies along the thalweg (deepest channel) of the Corentyne River.
This boundary was recognised by the Dutch in the early 1930’s.”  Thus, from Guyana’s perspective, we have access to the WESTERN waters in the Corentyne River, once it is not beyond the deepest channel. Dr Cedric Grant outlined in an article captioned “A persistent threat to Guyana’s territorial integrity” that in June 1962, the Netherlands replied to a British proposal on the border issue “with a package deal proposing that the frontier should follow the thalweg, the middle of the deepest channel, and that the westerly New River, instead of the Kutari, be adopted as the southern frontier.”   The
British did not accept the New River bit of that proposal, and the rest is history, with the Surinamese Government reverting to the old position that the Corentyne River is a national river.  A national river means that they own the entire river up to the low water mark on the Berbice side.  This reconciles with the position of the Surinamese Ambassador to CARICOM that they are only trying to protect their maritime boundaries.
From the precedent set, Suriname is prepared to back this position even “gun boat” style.
Unfortunately, Minister Rodrigues, the time for dispatching “Notes Verbale” has long gone. Burnham tried his world class diplomatic arsenal on a host of Surinamese Prime Ministers, starting from Johann Pengel in 1964, and this continued under Hoyte with the constructive diplomatic engagements of Ramsaywak Shankar in 1989.  Dr Jagan also continued this uninterrupted flow of diplomatic initiatives by engaging Ronald Venetiaan, and the story continues with all the subsequent Presidents, Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors.  Guyana can rest assured that all diplomatic initiatives were tried and now is the time for legal interpretations of the respective boundary claims and the associated operating legal principles to establish the Guyana-Suriname boundary once and for all.
Minister Rodrigues, you can leave a legacy for yourself by being the Foreign Minister of Guyana who has finally resolved the Guyana-Suriname border dispute once and for all, so that future generations of Guyanese do not have this threat hanging over their heads indefinitely.
Resolutions, however, can also not go in our favour, but at least it will give us certainty in going forward. Thomas Donovan, in a paper entitled “SURINAME-GUYANA MARITIME AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES: A LEGAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS”, stated on page 97 that with respect to the Corentyne River”, the precedents set forth by the 1936 and 1958-1962 Boundary Commissions will likely reward sovereignty to Suriname.”
He further state that “Guyana acquiesced to Suriname’s historic title to the River.” He believed that this control of the river was “inherited by Suriname at independence through uti possedetis de facto.”  ‘’Uti possedetis de facto” simply means actual possession and/or administration.
However, these statements are just the opinion of Mr. Donovan, since the parties never reached an international agreement with regards to our land boundaries.
If the judgement goes against us, it means all vessels plying the Corentyne River will have to register with the Surinamese authorities, and those over a certain weight will have to subject themselves to Surinamese pilots, a status quo that is being imposed on Guyana in aggression.
However, if the judgement goes in our favour, all Guyanese vessels will be able to travel freely on the western end of the Corentyne River without harassment from the Surinamese military.
What should Guyana do?
The best bet for a relatively quick, real and permanent solution is the dispute resolution mechanism supported by the International Country of Justice (ICJ). As an immediate prerequisite to Guyana approaching the ICJ, there should be a national conversation on this matter at the International Convention Centre, where all stakeholders, especially political parties, are brought together to share ideas, strategies and provide the kind of steer that any Government in this position would require.  From that conversation, a bipartisan monitoring team (including a skilled representative from the combined opposition) should be nominated under the leadership of the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs to manage the process, source funding for the exercise, and procure the relevant technical expertise to competently advocate our case at the ICJ.
Clarifying and protecting our rights is much more honourable that being the victim of an aggressive nation. Once the International Court of Justice has made a decision, we must use whatever means necessary to protect what is ours.
Decisive times require decisive action, and Guyana must procure an M.V. Berbice, a more powerful and equipped military sea-vessel than the M.V. Essequibo as one of our options on the table, in order to stop this aggressor nation.
Sasenarine Singh
Manchester, UK

---

---