Latest update June 3rd, 2026 12:40 AM
Was it only water, Bharrat Jagdeo was willing to give?
Dear Editor,
Having read former President Jagdeo’s statement (SN October 24, 2015) that the Venezuela issue could be settled by Guyana allowing, “…Venezuela a channel out to the sea. So, you make a slight concession in the maritime area but make sure that you do not concede any territory that is land-based…’’ is inherently flawed and the former President must withdraw his baseless statement and ill-advised generosity. In fact, it matters not if it is only water that the former President wishes to sacrifice to appease Venezuela. Such an act of appeasement has never worked anywhere and it will be wrong to give material comfort from our patrimony with the false hope that Venezuela will not ask for more water and land.
This approach is both tactless and suicidal and it will only embolden Venezuela, for they have already made false claims to more than half of Guyana, having illegally occupied for several years Ankoko Island and foiled several investment projects through a process that could only be described as economic hegemony.
And by the way, PetroCaribe and the rice deal with its unsustainable above market prices is the classic setup for the Trojan Horse that brings short-term gain for long-term pain. Put differently, one must be reminded of the saying, “You give he an inch and he gun take de whole “yard”.
Guyanese must never sign on to such folly, for we have already witnessed the divisiveness in the rice sector over a few unearned dollars. No one pays you 5 or 6 times the price for something that they could buy cheaper elsewhere (Suriname, the USA), unless it is setting you up for something that is detrimental to your wellbeing.
Incidentally, if our sister CARICOM countries think this is only a Guyanese problem, I ask them to think again, given the claim by Venezuela against Dominica to Bird Island, which is some 340 miles away from the mainland of Venezuela. A cursory look at the map will show why the CARICOM countries must be vigilant, as their water- way could be affected by the extended Venezuela borders.
Finally, I was intrigued by the letter (SN November 3, 2015) written by attorney Lalu Hanuman captioned, ‘Geneva Agreement revived a dead claim.’ in which he stated that it was the late President Burnham who reopened the Venezuela border issue. This is twaddle, for the record shows and I quote “In 1949, the US jurist Otto Schoenrich gave the Venezuelan government the Memorandum of Severo Mallet-Prevost (Official Secretary of the U.S./Venezuela delegation in the Tribunal of Arbitration), written in 1944 to be published only after Mallet-Prevost’s death. This re-opened the issue, with Mallet-Prevost surmising a political deal between Russia and Britain from the subsequent private behaviour of the judges.”
The settled Venezuela-Guyana border issue is one of the more important border concerns that involved European colonization and the land trades they made between and among themselves to resolve their differences and disagreements. Specifically, the Venezuela border issue included land swaps between Spain, the Netherlands, and England. It was impacted by at least two US Presidents, the Monroe Doctrine and the US Congress in 1895; it engaged legal minds in England and Wales, the USA and a Russian diplomat and jurist; and was it completed in a unanimous decision by the arbitrators in 1899 in Paris. Currently, it is now engaging the attention of the United Nations, some two hundred and sixteen years after it was settled.
While it is fascinating to read the historical record, it is most unfortunate that this controversy had been reignited by a document that was made public by someone who waited until his death to have it publicly released, knowing that all the persons tasked with the determination of this issue had predeceased him and therefore could not challenge his unauthorized statement. Furthermore, it should be noted that since Severo Mallet-Prevost was not a voting member of the panel, but no more than the secretary to the proceedings, one would only hope that the current reviewers take this into account and dismiss this unauthorized document.
Editor, this border issue is a tragedy that penalizes a small country and a permanent solution must be found for Guyana cannot continue to live under such subterfuge. The rule of law and not the machinations of an unauthorized and untested document should never hold sway, for this would set a bad international precedent.
C. Kenrick Hunte
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.