Letter on Geneva Agreement shows abject disregard for historical record

Dear Editor,

Characterizing the Geneva Agreement of February 17, 1966, as “the Lazarus Agreement,” attorney Lalu Hanuman lays the blame for Venezuela’s claim to Essequibo at the feet of late President Burnham in his November 3, letter in SN, titled ‘Geneva Agreement revived a dead claim.’ Mr Hanuman overlooks Burnham’s strong nationalist credentials in asserting that Burnham signed the Agreement because of his “opportunistic lust for power…”

There is an abject disregard for the historical record in this letter. Meetings preceded the actual signing. These spelled out clearly the eventual objective of the Geneva compact.

On November 7, 1965, a joint communique of the parties (Venezuela, Great Britain and British Guiana) stated that they were seeking to “find satisfactory solutions for a practical settlement of the controversy… as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the 1899 Award is null and void.”

In a later meeting of December 9-10, 1965, which was attended by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Premier Burnham, the principals adopted the precise language of the joint communique in their discussions.

Thus Article 1 of the Geneva Agreement specifically formalizes this concept of pursuing” satisfactory solutions “to resolve” the “Venezuelan contention” that the Arbitral Award was invalid. Both then and since neither Great Britain nor Guyana conceded that the Award was in any way deficient.

Therefore, Mr Hanuman’s declaration that “But for the Lazarus Agreement there would be no legal foundation for Venezuela’s claim” is ludicrous and worthless.

The Geneva Agreement neither revived nor enlivened the Venezuela border claim. It did, however, set up a platform for the parties to work out peacefully their disagreement over Venezuela’s insistence that the 1899 Award was “null and void.”

It can be argued that Guyana’s independence might have been delayed without a palliative to its more powerful neighbour’s demand for territory which was believed to be rich in minerals, forestry and oil. In this regard, the Agreement was a necessity for the new country to come into being with the real prospect of resolving the troubling border matter with Venezuela.

Much ill may be said or written about Forbes Burnham. There is every basis to state that his love for Guyana was unquestioned and that his belief in its territorial sovereignty was unflinching.

Yours faithfully,
Derrick Arjune