BURNHAM AND JAGDEO ARE ON THE SAME PAGE

Oct 25, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Bharrat Jagdeo, the former President of Guyana and the de facto leader of the People’s Progressive Party, has always been solid when it comes to economics. If you are a neo- liberalist you would find his view quite amenable.
When it comes to politics, however, he is often at the deep-end. He often puts his foot in his mouth and says things that end up hurting him and the party he represents.
His recent comments on the government’s handling of the Venezuelan threat to Guyana territorial integrity are a case in point. He is alleged to have said that there were other options which could have been considered such as granting to Venezuela a channel to the Atlantic. He views this as a small maritime concession which would not affect the 1899 Arbitral Award.
He is being naïve in his views because unlike in 1985 when Burnham was actively in talks with the Venezuelans over the very issue – ceding a channel to the Venezuelans to the Atlantic – the present controversy has less to do with this strategic objective and more to do with the fact that oil is reported to have been discovered off the Stabroek Block in Guyana’s EEZ.. The present dispute, therefore, between Guyana and Venezuela was triggered by that discovery and therefore it is not likely that the Venezuelans would be interested now in having a route to the Atlantic as they were just prior to Burnham’s death.
Burnham was unstoppable then. He had the nation at his fingertips. Unlike the present government, he was never interested in a juridical settlement. He could never afford that and he was afraid that the Geneva Agreement would be interpreted in a way different from how he thought it should be interpreted. He did not shy away from talks with Venezuela. In fact, after the expiration of the Protocol of Port of Spain which had frozen Venezuela’s claim for 12 years, Burnham made visits to Venezuela for talks. He never stopped talking to them. He held talks with the Venezuelans and publicly conceded that the discussions were about allowing an outlet to the Atlantic for Venezuela.
That was what Venezuela was seeking then. This was what was behind their claim then and Burnham was entertaining the idea granting them an outlet to the Atlantic.
The grant of an outlet does not mean that one cedes sovereign rights. A State can enjoy right of passage without exercising sovereignty. In fact, all naval and merchant vessels have rights of innocent passage through the territorial sea of coastal states. So it is not outside of the realm of the possible that a country can grant right of passage without ceding territory.
However, Venezuela is not now seeking a passage. It is laying claim to Guyana’s territorial waters because there is oil underneath those waters.
The second problem with the former President’s remarks concerning relations with Venezuela is his belief that Guyana by expressing a preference of a juridical settlement was going outside of the United Nations. Technically it is not. The International Court of Justice was created by the United Nations. It is a court of the United Nations.
There were other grounds on which the former President could have criticized the government. For one, Guyana is asking for talks with Suriname but it has made little attempt to engage the Venezuelans when there exists a framework under which such talks can take place.
Moving to a juridical settlement also is in contradiction with Guyana’s position that it considers its borders as settled. A juridical settlement cannot be restricted to determining whether the 1899 Award is null and void. It will have to consider the original legality of that award and that effectively reopens the whole issue.
When Burnham was accused of reopening the Venezuelan claim to Guyana, his mouthpieces claimed that any reopening began with Jagan who had said that British Guiana wanted to see the documents on which Venezuela premised its claim to Guyana.
Guyana is insisting that it has a settled border with Suriname, yet it wants Suriname to open its books. Will the same argument made against Jagan in the 1960’s still hold true? Will the examination of documents be construed as the reopening of a territorial claim to the New River or was this always an argument of convenience to hide the true intent of the Geneva Agreement of 1966?
Jagdeo will get a lot of flak over his statements about the option of a passage to the Atlantic. People will ignore the fact that Burnham was actively pursuing that very option when he died.

Latest News

BURNHAM AND JAGDEO ARE ON THE SAME PAGE

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Tennis Association applauds historic GYD $8 billion allocation to the...

Squash Association notes significance of...

Pepsi Hikers and GBTI GCC win Bounty/Antonio’s...

GYMMAF president lauds Transformative G$8 billion...

GOA says 2025 Sports Budget allocation...

Foreign Link Darts Club hosts successful...

Features/Columnists

‘Govt. must come clean on gas-to-energy project’

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Sanctity, sanctity, sanctity – an era of infamy

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

BURNHAM AND JAGDEO ARE ON THE SAME PAGE

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]