By Dr Odeen Ishmael In a new twist to the Venezuelan renewed vociferous and heated claim to Guyana’s western Essequibo territory, eight opposition members of the Venezuelan National Assembly have presented a special bill for the creation of a new Essequibo “state”.
The eight proponents explained that the idea of the new state was conceived and developed by Sergio Urdaneta, a lawyer specializing in constitutional and administrative law, and that their proposal “is inspired by the best patriotic, sober and responsible feeling.” In its preamble, the bill, published in the Venezuelan online periodical, Noticiero Digital.com, alleges that the Paris arbitral award of October 3, 1899 “amended” the Constitution of the country and reduced Venezuelan territory by 159,500 square kilometers. It further claims that the award was never ratified by the Venezuelan State and therefore it remained without any validity. Strangely, the eight parliamentarians have not included in their proposal for their proposed state the chunk of 10,350 square kilometers of territory west of the Rupununi District, granted to the then British Guiana by the 1899 award, but which was later ceded by the British government to Brazil after another arbitration in 1902. This area bounded by the Takutu and the Cotinga River (in Brazil) was originally claimed by Venezuela before the arbitral tribunal. The bill also asserts that the award “was achieved by coercion,” thus closing the proponents’ minds on the fact that it was actually the British government that was forced to agree to arbitration in 1897 by the American government, which at that time heavily backed Venezuela in its territorial claim. With regard to the structure of their proposed “Esequivo State,” the provisional capital will be the city of Tumeremo in the Sifontes municipality. The governor “is required to be Venezuelan by birth, over twenty-five years and a layman”. For this purpose, a Venezuelan is considered to be to anyone born in the territory “which includes the Esequivo territory.” The bill goes on to explain that legislative power will be vested in the new state by a legislative council comprised of between seven to fifteen members, elected for a term of four years by the voting majority. And the territory of the proposed state will be organized into municipalities, parishes, communes, departments, cantons, and captains, and “recognizes any geographical, historical, cultural features and realities of the inhabitants of the territory”. Apparently, the proposers of the new state feel that it good enough for a governor and the legislative council to “be elected by the population that makes up the municipality of Sifontes until the register of the remaining territory of the state is completed”. The eight National Assembly members indicate optimistically in their bill that, when passed, the legislation “shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela in Spanish, English, Macuchi and Wapishana”. How much support the bill will garner is not yet known, but in recent days, both government and opposition members of the National Assembly have shown strong unity in backing President Nicolas Maduro in his vehement demand for Essequibo. Only recently, on July 14, the National Assembly voted unanimously to support him, with almost no criticisms from the opposition. And on the following day, they applauded his establishment of a presidential commission for border issues. In this test of patriotism for his opponents, they have passed with flying colours. They in turn will surely demand their pound of flesh, and the proponents of the “Esequivo” bill must be thinking that they will be able to garner much needed support from parliamentarians on the government side. On the other hand, it may still fizzle out, since the Venezuelan government has more challenging economic issues to handle at this time. However, the entire concept of a new Venezuelan state encompassing Guyana’s Essequibo territory assumes, erroneously, that Guyanese citizens residing there will gleefully accept Venezuelan citizenship. Nevertheless, it presents a dangerous ploy to the Guyanese nation, for this bill comes right out of the playbook of European revanchists of the nineteen and twentieth centuries and even more recently, who laid similar types of groundwork before they acted to annex neighbouring weaker territories. © Copyright by Odeen Ishmael. Published with permission | |||
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Former Member
[[QUOTE]]
The bill also asserts that the award “was achieved by coercion,” thus closing the proponents’ minds on the fact that it was actually the British government that was forced to agree to arbitration in 1897 by the American government, which at that time heavily backed Venezuela in its territorial claim.
[[UNQUOTE]]
Interesting developments where the US_of_A was supporting in the 1890's and in 2015 is against Venezuela.
Former Member
One thing I cannot understand is why we (Carl Greenidge) are asking for a judicial solution? Can we lose territory under a "judicial solution?"
This thing was already settled in 1899. Or is the judicial solution ONLY to look at "validity" of the 1899 award?
Former Member
Originally Posted by VVP:
One thing I cannot understand is why we (Carl Greenidge) are asking for a judicial solution? Can we lose territory under a "judicial solution?"
This thing was already settled in 1899. Or is the judicial solution ONLY to look at "validity" of the 1899 award?
Now, understand why things are a mess in less than 100 days.
Former Member
Originally Posted by VVP:
One thing I cannot understand is why we (Carl Greenidge) are asking for a judicial solution? Can we lose territory under a "judicial solution?"
This thing was already settled in 1899. Or is the judicial solution ONLY to look at "validity" of the 1899 award?
The Geneva Agreement of 1966 had provided for a "Good Officer" to facilitate a settlement. After over 40 years the "Good Officer" mechanism turned out to be good-fo-nothing. The Guyana Government has no confidence in that mechanism and wants the International Court of Justice to arbitrate. I support this plan.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by VVP:
One thing I cannot understand is why we (Carl Greenidge) are asking for a judicial solution? Can we lose territory under a "judicial solution?"
This thing was already settled in 1899. Or is the judicial solution ONLY to look at "validity" of the 1899 award?
The Geneva Agreement of 1966 had provided for a "Good Officer" to facilitate a settlement. After over 40 years the "Good Officer" mechanism turned out to be good-fo-nothing. The Guyana Government has no confidence in that mechanism and wants the International Court of Justice to arbitrate. I support this plan.
Nope, Guyana position is that there in no further arbitration; that was settled in 1899. Any further judicial solution will only look at the validity of the 1899 award because Venezuela claims that there was a “political deal” between Great Britain and Russia in 1899 which would render the results of the arbitration null and void. So a legal case is need to find the 1899 award null and void. I just finished reading Odeen's History of Guyana and it cleared up the questions in my post above.
Former Member
Originally Posted by VVP:
The Geneva Agreement of 1966 had provided for a "Good Officer" to facilitate a settlement. After over 40 years the "Good Officer" mechanism turned out to be good-fo-nothing. The Guyana Government has no confidence in that mechanism and wants the International Court of Justice to arbitrate. I support this plan.
Nope, Guyana position is that there in no further arbitration; that was settled in 1899. Any further judicial solution will only look at the validity of the 1899 award because Venezuela claims that there was a “political deal” between Great Britain and Russia in 1899 which would render the results of the arbitration null and void. So a legal case is need to find the 1899 award null and void. I just finished reading Odeen's History of Guyana and it cleared up the questions in my post above.
And of course, this will be their strategy to challenge the 1899 decree. It gets tricky as it could be construed a "political deal" with Russia supporting the UK on certain disputed colonial territory and the UK supporting Russia in annexing some Ottoman territory.
Russia is in a quandary as Venez is their (today) ally but not supporting their original position will open up questions on the territories they annexed in exchange which are still in conflict to this day.
Former Member
Originally Posted by baseman:
And of course, this will be their strategy to challenge the 1899 decree. It gets tricky as it could be construed a "political deal" with Russia supporting the UK on certain disputed colonial territory and the UK supporting Russia in annexing some Ottoman territory.
Russia is in a quandary as Venez is their (today) ally but not supporting their original position will open up questions on the territories they annexed in exchange which are still in conflict to this day.
Another excerpt from Odeen's History of Guyana:
Crowe announced that the British Government, with the concurrence of the Government of British Guiana, was prepared to discuss with the Venezuelan Government, through diplomatic channels, arrangements for a tripartite, Venezuela British Guiana United Kingdom examination of the voluminous documentary material relevant to this question. He added that this was not an offer to engage in substantive talks about the revision of the frontier but to dispel any doubts which the Venezuelan Government had about the validity or propriety of the Arbitral Award.
After an agreement to this effect was reached between the British and Venezuelan Governments, Venezuelan experts examined British documents in London from 30 July to 11 September, 1963. Sir Geoffrey Meade, retired Foreign Service Officer, who was appointed to represent the United Kingdom, also represented the Government of British Guiana at the latter’s request.
On the 5-7 November 1963, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela met the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom to review the progress in the examination of the documents. The Foreign Ministers agreed that the British expert, Sir Geoffrey Meade, should go to Caracas to examine any documents which the Venezuelan Government might wish to produce to support their allegation that the Award was improperly arrived at. Meade was in Caracas from 3 to 12 December 1963, and examined the relevant documents produced by the Venezuelan Government. (The examination of documents in the two capitals by both sides continued in 1964 and into 1965 and the reports of the experts appointed by each side were exchanged. Nevertheless, Venezuela refused to be convinced even though it could not produce any document to support its contention).
It is Amerindian lands. Neither the Venezuelans or the Guyanese have rights to it. But the way history unfolded, the native peoples of the New World had no say how the Spaniards, the Portuguese and the British imposed their greed.
It was the Roman Catholic Church that divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Then in 1763, the British imposed their settlement on all lands, both in the New and Old World.
I maintain, the Vatican has to have words with Maduro, And Guyana has to develop the attitude of empowering the Amerindians. The way it exists-stalemate.
Former Member
Former Member
Originally Posted by seignet:
It was the Roman Catholic Church that divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Then in 1763, the British imposed their settlement on all lands, both in the New and Old World.
I don't think the British was involved in Guyana in 1763 although there were British settlers in Guyana. Britain really started to get involved in 1803.
Originally Posted by VVP:
Originally Posted by seignet:
It was the Roman Catholic Church that divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Then in 1763, the British imposed their settlement on all lands, both in the New and Old World.
I don't think the British was involved in Guyana in 1763 although there were British settlers in Guyana. Britain really started to get involved in 1803.
The British American war affected every European power and their lands in the New World. The treaty saw lands held by the French as far off as India changed hands. Guianas, even though not British Colonies at the time was listed as possessions by European crowns. Foreign lands were exchanged freely among the European powers.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
227 online (0 members
/
227 guests)