OK fellas, lets take it easy with the trash talking and racial accusations. This does not advance our understanding.

 

Giving up any part of Guyana can be considered treasonous. Its one thing if Venezuela invades and takes over Ankoko, its another thing when we voluntarily give up territory. For the record, from looking at the tape and reading what Jagdeo actually said, he did mention that there are several plans on the table. In addition, one of the author of the border controversy, a Guyanese, cant remember the name, did make the point that the idea of offering a 'corridor or passage' did not originate with former president Jagdeo. It actually originated with LFSB. 

 

And lets be realistic...finding a solution while we pursue the legal course may take generations...especially since Venezuela's oil supply is dwindling and they would like to claim the part where oil is found in Guyana. 

 

I do not agree that this makes someone treasonous. During the Iran discussions there were Americans who felt differently and who offered up different interpretation.

Well, Granger makes decisions, honor and promote despicable people of the Guyanese society. He is a bully and cares very little for public opinions. So far, he has pretty well told the Indoes to f-themselves and then turn around and told the Afroes, he handles the revenue of the country and he can tek whatever he pleases.

 

From the inception of his Presidency he behaves as the emperor-nothing more than a bully. It is fitting that he challenged by another Bully, Maduro. Hopefully that should checkmate him for awhile. 

 

A forked tongued President.

I feel they should be banned for that.

Vish,this is not true they have the world largest reserve,

every one knows why the border issue was raised,oil find

by US company.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com...-oil-reserves-2015-7

 

1. Venezuela

 

Thanks for the info...at least they are highly dependent on oil.

I've never heard of Burnham saying that. His mantra was always "not a blade of grass" in regards to the Venezuelan bogus claim. Regardless of its origin, it's a ridiculous suggestion by Jagdeo. By doing this we would be legitimizing Venezuelan's claim to Guyana when there is no legal basis for this claim. Also, Venezuela already has a corridor to the Atlantic via the Orinoco River so why would we even entertain the idea of giving them another corridor to the ocean in Guyana territory?

From Odeen's History Of Guyana on the Geneva Agreement:

 

In Guyana, the PPP was critical of the agreement claiming that it provided Venezuela with a legal base to continue to press its claim to Guyana’s territory. It stated that the Guyana Government yielded ground at the conference on vital issues with the result that Guyana was committed to joint action with Venezuela in seeking a solution to a dispute which had no legal basis but which was now given international status. In addition to this, the Party claimed that Venezuela appeared to have been given special consideration with regard to the exploitation of the natural resources of what that country calls Guyana Essequibo.

The PNC UF coalition Government, on the other hand, welcomed the Agreement, and on the 5 March 1966, Prime Minister Burnham insisted that there was no question of the Geneva Agreement being regarded by his Government as a compromise on Guyana’s territorial integrity. Interestingly, in a separate comment, Attorney General Shridath Ramphal admitted that the Agreement became a pre-requisite for Guyana achieving its independence.

The question to ask is whether the lot of the Guyanese people will be further improved by Venezuela or Suriname annexing respective territory.  With the AFC/APNU in charge, many people now suffering from their incompetence would be entertaining this idea. 

look how yuh husslin for me to put yuh name up in lights

 

paitence klown, paitence

This being said, Guyana should continue to pursue the diplomatic and legal route, but- at the same time I don't have a problem with the two countries working together (as best as it can be under the circumstances, without us being bullied) to solve common problems. A more hard ball approach towards Surinam should be in order.

u two are contributing absolutely NOTHING here

       
       


Yeah wid all the treason talk don't you think all dem PNC should be charged for selling out Guyana at Genava?  What yuh tink brite bai?

i suggest you pick up a proper book on the subject, actually read it, or have somebody (non-Sanata person) not foaming at the mouth explain "Geneva" to u

Professor Redux what about this who is the traitor selling out Guyana here:

 

HOYTE ON THE ISSUE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT - Interview with SN.

 

Meanwhile, the issue of joint development continued to be discussed in the Guyanese media. The editor of the Stabroek News, David DeCaires and Hoyte had the following exchange during the latter's meeting with the press on 10 November 1989.

 

DeCAIRES: At one stage joint development was widely mooted as a possibility for solution of the border issue. . . . Is it likely that will be one of the possibilities to be put before the Good Officer by our side in the talks that will ensue?

HOYTE: Well, you know I like to have my terms defined and I'm not sure what joint development means. If it means a kind of condominium, well, certainly that will not be on the cards - you know, some joint exercise of sovereignty over the Essequibo region or some thing of that kind. I don't know whether this concept of joint development means that.

DeCAIRES: Do I, sir, take your remarks then to imply that joint development that involves some permanent Venezuelan presence on what is now our side of the border is not a matter for discussion or negotiation.

HOYTE: No, what I'm saying depends on what you mean. Suppose Guyana and Venezuela were to establish a joint company for the establishment of a hydro-power facility, certainly, Venezuelan personnel will be there along with Guyanese personnel just as how, let's say, a private American company operating in this country will have . . . American managers, and so on. So there is nothing unusual or unacceptable in a situation like that. But what I'm saying is that there had been talk many years ago about joint development. I myself wasn't quite clear on what it meant. All I'm saying is that if it means condominium, you know well certainly that couldn't be on the cards. But we have not put any such proposal to the Venezuelans.

DeCAIRES: Can we rule out absolutely, sir, any possibility of concession of territory?

HOYTE: Well, at this stage I wouldn't want to close any option. I mean we don't know. You see, there have been cases where controversies have been settled, relating to territory, with what is called rectification of borders - you know, there is a swap. So I mean I don't want to take a fundamentalist position which closes any option at all. I think that would be quite wrong and it would send the wrong signals to our Venezuelan neighbours, and if they took such a position it would send the wrong signals to us. So we go into discussions with an open mind and a spirit of goodwill.

Here some more Redux; this time is your Kabaka:

 

From Odeen's The Trail Of Diplomacy

 

 

MPROVED POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS

 

A. BURNHAM'S INTERVIEW WITH EL NACIONAL

 

On 1 March 1985, Burnham was interviewed at his office in Georgetown by Alfredo Peña, a senior journalist of the Venezuelan newspaper, El Nacional. The lengthy interview discussed the Venezuelan territorial claim and a range of other international issues. An edited Spanish version of this interview was published in El Nacional on 4 March 1985. The Office of the President of Guyana subsequently released the original transcript, and the relevant section dealing with Venezuela-Guyana relations is reproduced below:

 

PEÑA: Mr. President, based on the Geneva Agreement, Venezuela and Guyana have begun talks on the question of the boundary. Would you accept whatever directions are set out by the United Nations Secretary General? And if not, what would you propose?

 

BURNHAM: Well, in the first place, it must be understood what is the role of the Secretary General of the United Nations under the Geneva Agreement. His role is to propose the modalities for settlement. In other words, what means should we use. He is not at this stage, under the Geneva Agreement, to make an adjudication. He is to say whether we should proceed by conciliation, or the international Court of Justice or mediation or arbitration. Whatever means he chooses, under the Geneva Agreement, both sides are bound by it, and are obliged to use that means.

 

PEÑA: Sometime ago, not very long ago, you, Mr. President, said that Guyana will not hand over a blade of grass or a square inch of the territory under dispute. You said at that time that Venezuela was a land-grabber and once you put on a military uniform (that of a General) and said you propose to militarise the Essequibo. Are these plans still pursued?

 

BURNHAM: Well, first of all, by courtesy, I wear a General's uniform and have worn it for sometime because I am, ex-officio, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in Guyana. This has nothing to do with militarization or a military solution. Because in any case, it is not for us to decide on any solution. If it is military solution, then it would be Venezuela's decision, because we are in possession of Essequibo under the Arbitral Award of 1899. It is Venezuela who says that we shall not get possession of it. So any militarization of the conflict must automatically be the choice of Venezuela. But we have reason to believe that Venezuela no longer pursues the idea of a military solution.

 

PEÑA: You had announced in 1982 that you were going to establish military camps in the Essequibo region. Have you changed this view?

 

BURNHAM: I couldn't change the view, because I didn't so express it. What I did say was that we are going to have border posts. Hitherto, we had no border posts. Now, we have established a number of border posts.

 

PEÑA: On one occasion, you also said that you were aligning yourself with the devil if necessary, to face up to an invasion from Venezuela. You said you would accept the assistance of Cuba if Cuba offered such assistance.

 

BURNHAM: If there were a military demarche by Venezuela, I said so.

 

PEÑA: But, Venezuela never said it was going to invade Guyana.

 

BURNHAM: You seem to forget your former Minister of Youth. You seem to forget the seizure of a part of Ankoko Island. You seem to forget some publications in the press by your office.

 

PEÑA: In Venezuela, the press is free. The Government does not exercise any control over the means of communication. The Minister of Youth is not a Chief of State.

 

BURNHAM: He is a member of Government.

 

PEÑA: The Minister of Youth left with a group of young people on a Boy Scout excursion. Venezuela doesn't have a single inhabitant in Essequibo, neither civilian nor military.

 

BURNHAM: If she doesn't have, but if she is on the border, and making these hawkish statements, what are we to do? Put yourself in the place of a Guyanese. You have a powerful neighbour who is better armed with sophisticated weaponry, and a number of bellicose statements are issuing from that country. What do you do?

 

PEÑA: But there were statements which were very bellicose emanating from yourself in Brazil.

 

BURNHAM: We could never make . . . .

 

PEÑA: And in Vienna.

 

BURNHAM: I have never been to Vienna, so I don't know who could have. No. Sorry.

 

PEÑA: In Ocho Rios, Jamaica, you said given an exit Venezuela would if permitted take control of the entire Eastern Caribbean area and give to her an opening to an important region which has oil resources offshore. The statement was made on the ninth of July 1984.

 

BURNHAM: That's it.

 

PEÑA: But right now the question is being raised - that same kind of proposals that were raised under the Perez government - of a solution; that is, Venezuela's exit to the Atlantic. Foreign Minister Morales Paul has said that Venezuela would have to have a portion of land and sea for itself.

 

BURNHAM: We can discuss it. But having an entry into the Caribbean is quite different from owning the land bordering the Caribbean.

 

PEÑA: The signing of a formula which controls port on the Atlantic and a portion of land.

 

BURNHAM: And a portion of land? It is not for me to anticipate what discussions may take place.

 

PEÑA: I would like to ask you if the aggressive attitude, which you had, has diminished.

 

BURNHAM: You cannot beg the question, because Guyana cannot be aggressive. Guyana is in possession of territory under the 1899 Arbitral Award. Venezuela says that award is void, and therefore, you print on your stamps and you say in statements that Essequibo belongs to you. You call it the area for reclamation. We can't be aggressive, because we are not claiming any land. We are not claiming to move westward; we are not claiming we have the right to move westward. Venezuela is claiming a right to move eastward. We could never be aggressive.

 

PEÑA: I was only referring to verbal aggression.

 

BURNHAM: You cannot even be verbally aggressive over something which you possess and which someone else says belongs to him. It may be a matter of semantics; it may be a matter of nuances in the two languages. But, in English (language), he who is in possession and seeks to retain that possession cannot by definition be aggressive.

 

PEÑA: The Geneva Agreement obliges the three parties, England, Guyana and Venezuela, and today, this Agreement requires a solution acceptable to both parties, independently, because Guyana has possession of the territory which we are claiming all the while. Either we accept the Geneva Agreement or we don't accept it. Venezuela accepts it.

 

BURNHAM: I don't want in any way to prejudice the informal discussions that are going on. But let me point this out. That both Britain and Guyana have always taken the position that Venezuela, the way it has set out its claim, must first prove the invalidity of the Award. I don't think that it is sufficiently understood in Venezuela that the 1966 Geneva Agreement speaks about the dispute with respect to the validity of the Award. So, you have, first, to prove the invalidity of the Award. And then if you have succeeded, by one means or another, in proving the invalidity of that Award, the question of where the boundary would lie, then arises. But, like I said before, I don't want to prejudice, first of all, the atmosphere of amity which now exists, nor the results of the informal discussions that are going on.

 

PEÑA: You said that you would accept whatever the United Nations Secretary General said, if the United Nations Secretary General would seek a solution which would favour both parties.

 

BURNHAM: That is not the role of the Secretary General. The Secretary General is asked to choose the means to resolving the dispute. He is not asked to make a solution. If he were to propose a solution of the basic problem, it would be as a result of the two parties asking him to do so. But at the moment, that is not the position, hence the importance and significance of the informal talks which are going on.

 

PEÑA: What I wanted to say was that it is felt in some quarters in Venezuela, that the change of tone in your statements is a response to the fact that you would like economic cooperation from Venezuela because of the terrible crisis which Guyana is currently experiencing.

 

BURNHAM: That is not so. First of all, the present Venezuelan Government has adopted a quiet, friendly, reasonable attitude without necessarily foregoing the basic Venezuelan claim. Venezuela is our neighbour. If there is such an attitude on the part of the Venezuelan Government, it is our desire, nay, our duty to react. You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your neighbours. Therefore, certainly, it is the epitome of wisdom to have reasonable relations with your neighbours. Now take for instance, Suriname. Suriname has a claim for five thousand square miles on the southeast tip of Guyana. But there is no bellicosity about it. And Suriname and Guyana are cooperating economically. We trade with them, supplying them commodities which they don't have. Similarly with Venezuela. Now, the question of economic co-operation with Venezuela has nothing to do with our present economic crisis, because the goods that we are selling to Venezuela we could possibly have sold elsewhere. But, of course, it is much better and more convenient to both parties if the exchange goes on on our border. That very economic cooperation can induce a more reasonable attitude on both sides and make for an atmosphere in which both sides can sit down and talk.

 

PEÑA: In the talks which you had with the Foreign Minister, Morales Paul, did you request any kind of cooperation for instance in the dredging of rivers, the sale of bauxite, and in other sectors?

 

BURNHAM: Those were details which were discussed between officials of both sides. I myself was not involved. What I know as a general fact is that it is agreed in principle that Venezuela, this year, will buy some amount of metal grade bauxite. And there were discussions which at the very beginning, with respect to dredging, which would facilitate the movement of the bauxite in larger lots, which would be to the advantage of Venezuela and to the advantage of Guyana. I am not sure of the figure. I think it may be 150,000 or 250,000 tonnes. I was not personally involved. Foreign Minister Jackson may know. But, definitely the head of our bauxite complex, Cde. Bernard Crawford.

 

PEÑA: You visited the Soviet Union and you spoke with the authorities in the Kremlin and it seems that the visit was not very fruitful from the point of view of economic cooperation.

 

BURNHAM: We don't visit these countries to seek capital inflows. What I discussed was the widening of trade relations, deepening of trade relations and proper prices for the goods which we can sell. I recall when I went to Venezuela a few years ago that the Venezuelan Ambassador to Guyana said that he expected me to go with an economic plan to get financial assistance. That's not the attitude of Guyana. Guyana, rich in resources, is interested in trade on a remunerative basis, and, or, in projects jointly undertaken for the benefit of both sides. To give you an example, we have a joint project here now with Yugoslavia for the exploitation of gold in certain areas of the Mazaruni. Their expertise combined with our lesser expertise - and our resources should yield results beneficial to both sides. We are not asking Yugoslavia for money. The same applies to a joint project for agricultural expansion on the east side of the Mazaruni, with the Koreans.

 

PEÑA: Have you achieved any concrete results?

 

BURNHAM: With the Soviets? Certainly. They have been taking larger quantities of our bauxite. In some cases, that bauxite is used in counter trade. We have been able to get equipment and motor cars and we have signed contracts with reasonable time payments for the purchase of aircraft - civilian aircraft - half of which we pay in bauxite.

 

PEÑA: Do you continue to give concession to Canadian, American and British companies in the Essequibo region for exploration in that area?

 

BURNHAM: Well, it just depends on whether applications are made, and whether we are satisfied with the terms that can he agreed on. There is a Canadian company which has a concession jointly with Guyana for the exploitation of gold. As far as I can recall, there is no British. We are in discussions with an American company, formerly Canadian owned, for the exploration of our on-shore oil facilities, in the Rupununi. The French have been doing some exploration in the general area of the Essequibo, for as you know, Essequibo is more than two-thirds of Guyana. That is for uranium.

 

PEÑA: Under the Geneva Agreement, there is provision for the investment of transnational companies in Essequibo. Would any of the parties be affected as a result of such investment?

 

BURNHAM: Certainly not. Now let us suppose the impossible happens, that by peaceful means Venezuela gets the whole of Essequibo. If you got the whole of Essequibo, you also get the investments made by the transnationals. In other words, as a lawyer, I say, Venezuela would then inherit all rights to which its predecessors in title had. But, of course, I don't think that Venezuela can possibly by peaceful means get the whole of Essequibo.

 

PEÑA: I ask this because if there is a zone under claim, if the other party which is administering this zone makes agreements or arrangements for international capital, and with the great powers, these can be influential factors in the maintenance of the status quo.

 

BURNHAM: Believe me, I never looked at it that way when I interpreted the Geneva Agreement.

 

PEÑA: Multinational companies might have reached agreement with you and it can be thought that that would have some kind of influence in your favour, to maintain the present situation.

 

BURNHAM: That is a matter of your interpretation. Not for me.

 

PEÑA: When you became Premier in 1964, you were an anti-communist and were opposed to Jagan precisely because he, Jagan, was a Marxist-Leninist. Now, you have changed somewhat. You have drifted away to some extent from the United States and have become a friend of Cuba and the Soviet Union. I want to know what happened.

 

BURNHAM: Now, first of all, I have never been anti-communist. I have not been and never have been and never will be a communist, if by communist you mean taking orders from Moscow, or supporting Moscow automatically on any international matter. I have always said that I am a socialist. I have always said that I am not a Marxist-Leninist. Because Lenin was a Russian politician and I cannot be a Marxist-Leninist; because Lenin was not a Guyanese politician.

 

PEÑA: Marx was a German politician.

 

BURNHAM: He was not so much a politician as a political philosopher. He never fought an election. He sat down in the British Museum and wrote his book.

 

PEÑA: In any case, you arrived in power with the blessings of Washington and of London. You made a rapprochement with Moscow and with Havana.

 

BURNHAM: As an independent country, first of all we opened diplomatic relations with countries other than Western countries. Secondly, we opened trade relations the same way that the United States has trade relations. Independence connotes the right to have diplomatic relations with whom you want. But, apparently, some circles in the United States feel that small countries, even though independent, have no freedom of choice as to whom they will have diplomatic, trade and economic relations with. In the meantime, the United States is hustling to increase her trade with others. We have found on some occasions that we have bought goods from the United States which are made in Poland. Then why shouldn't we buy it straight from Poland? And cheaper? Does that make us a crony of the Soviet Union? Or Poland? Before we nationalised bauxite, Alcan refused to sell its product from Guyana into Eastern Europe. Now that we are independent, we can sell into Eastern Europe without neglecting our traditional customers in the West. That is what we perceive to be independence and what independence is all about. And it has nothing at all to do with ideology.

 

PEÑA: You, being the President of a country, which until recently was a colony, and is in some way, part of the family of the Third World, why didn't you support Argentina in an act of sovereignty in trying to recuperate a part of its territory which had been taken from it by British imperialism?

 

BURNHAM: In Lima, Peru, I think it was in 1975, at a meeting of Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers, we supported the right of ownership that Argentina had to the Falkland Islands. And that position, we have retained. When the war between Britain and Argentina took place two years ago, our position was that we opposed Argentina's using force. That is all. Subsequently, when the matter came up for discussion in the United Nations General Assembly, Britain was flabbergasted to find that we were on the side of Argentina's right. You must distinguish between the right and attempts to exercise that right by force.

 

PEÑA: But Argentina for more than a hundred years had requested in every way possible, by the use of all means possible, and England, with great disdain, and with colonial arrogance, did not see it fit to sit down at the discussion table.

 

BURNHAM: I understand what you are saying. But we adhere to the principle that force should not be used in the settlement of disputes. And in the peculiar circumstances, Guyana must always adhere to that. Because you must also look at your rear. If we accept the principle . . .

 

PEÑA: But your people were the victims of British imperialism.

 

BURNHAM: It's a question of force. We cannot agree to settling these problems by force. Let me be frank with you. We allow you to settle your problem by force. The present Venezuelan government is a peaceful government. Can I anticipate what kind of government you are going to have that may seek to settle the problem by force?

 

PEÑA: The Venezuelans used force to free themselves from colonialism, Spanish colonialism, European colonialism the same colonialism which took away a piece of Argentina. Go a little further, the same colonialism which took away Essequibo.

 

BURNHAM: Go a little further into your history. The colonialist British helped you to chase out the Spaniards. . .

 

This one is for TK:

 

PEÑA: You, being the President of a country, which until recently was a colony, and is in some way, part of the family of the Third World, why didn't you support Argentina in an act of sovereignty in trying to recuperate a part of its territory which had been taken from it by British imperialism?

 

BURNHAM: In Lima, Peru, I think it was in 1975, at a meeting of Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers, we supported the right of ownership that Argentina had to the Falkland Islands. And that position, we have retained. When the war between Britain and Argentina took place two years ago, our position was that we opposed Argentina's using force. That is all. Subsequently, when the matter came up for discussion in the United Nations General Assembly, Britain was flabbergasted to find that we were on the side of Argentina's right. You must distinguish between the right and attempts to exercise that right by force.

VVP, you copied n pasted a couple of lengthy excerpts from interviews with Burnham and Hoyte regarding Essequibo that do not address anything i posted on this thread

 

is this supposed to impress the lightly educated that u are some sort of scholar or have important things to say on this issue?

 

most important (since u call my name in vain) . . . what exactly is the point or statement made by redux that you are supposedly rebutting?

 

banna, u are skating perilously close to non sequitur territory . . . don't waste my time sir

This wan:

imagine . . . these jagdeo shitheads claim to be Guyanese.

 

Yahall laughing Jagdeo sehing that he willing to barter Guyana but yahall leaders were doing the same shit.

remind the Board again what i ran the "shitheads" up the flagpole for

 

if u need help, just revist the caption of the thread, arite?

 

now go tek a shit and calm yuh stupidass down; then ask sumbady literate to explain to u the basics of framing a proper argument

 

am i clear?