The Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) in a release says it has noted a statement by Sir. Shridath Ramphal on the proposed meeting between President Irfaan Ali and Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduro on Thursday, December 14, 2023, in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
According to the United States-based organisation:
1. Sir. Shridath Ramphal’s statement is quizzically misleading, and was obviously solicited by the government because of the backlash from the citizens of Guyana.
2. He emphasised the consistent support of CARICOM for Guyana on the border controversy and CARICOM’s statement supporting Guyana’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). While this is true, CARICOM Heads have, however, failed to denounce the bellicose rhetoric and actions of Maduro and did not expressly call on him to cease his plans to annex Essequibo by force and de-escalate or repudiate his declaration of war against Guyana.
3. Sir Shridath Ramphal is incorrect that CARICOM did not say the meeting was to discuss the border issue. In fact CARICOM specifically stated in the invitation letter from Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines, that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss “matters consequential to the border controversy.” This means the border controversy will be discussed.
4. The Geneva Agreement sets out the pathaway for the resolution of this matter. Said path constitutes several stages, all of which involve the US Secretary General as the interlocutor and principal decision maker of the mechanism for engagement. At this sensitive juncture, when the matter is at the apex stage and is subjudice at the ICJ , why would Guyana deviate from the Geneva Agreement to which both Venezuela and Guyana have already agreed, and the inherent mandate of the US Secretary General? Furthermore, why isn’t the UN Secretary General involved in the meeting as an interlocutor of this (retrogressive) step to remain within the sirit of the Geneva Agreement?
5. Guyana has the international law on it’s side. Consequently, why follow Venezuela into a rabbit hole and employ a synchronous process of, reverting at Venezuela’s dictate to, a Good Officer type mechanism while concurrently pursuing the juridical resolution at the ICJ? There’s no argument that the meeting will influence the ICJ’s judges’ determination of the case on the merits and international law. We, however, contend that the meeting compromises Guyana’s strong legal position and gives legitimacy to Maduro’s delusions of grandeur, self-manufactured controversy and unlawful, bellicose acts.
5. In President Ali’s response to Prime Minister Gonsalves’ letter, he failed to expressly state that the border controversy is off limits for the agenda. Infact he hid behind the contentions of the nugatory statement issued by the Heads. Neither did he establish conditions that require Maduro to withdraw his silly and bogus governance and military structure for Essequibo, adumbrated pursuant to his hocus-pocus referendum.
6. Sir Ramphal’s statement is therefore unconvincing and does not inspire confidence in the outcome of the meeting in the context of our foreign policy objectives. What is the possible outcome Guyana can expect short of Maduro’s full repudiation of his referendum and commandant aggression?
7. The meeting is being held under threat of force. Maduro is being appeased and rewarded for his bad behavior. Maduro said he will not respect the ICJ ruling, and that only a face to face meeting and negotiations will resolve this matter. We have obliged his meeting demand. He got something he wanted. What did Guyana get? What are we negotiating?
8. The Guyana government said it will abide by the ruling of the ICJ. Venezuela said it will not. After the ruling, if it is in Guyana’s favor, Guyana will have to move to the UN Security Council for a resolution to enforce the judgment. How would this meeting help persuade Venezuela to accept the ruling? We fail to see the objective and wins for Guyana at this meeting.
9. CARICOM’s posture suggests that Maduro’s actions are legitimate and that there is an equal level of aggression by both actors. This position is irrational and disturbing. Maduro is planning a war, while Guyana is pursuing the matter peacefully the ICJ. What CARICOM should have done is send a delegation of Heads of Government to Caracas to demand that Maduro stops his warmongering and aggression and respect the decisions of the ICJ.
10. We revere Sir Shridath. But his intervention, while significantly lacking in strategic merit, reeks of and appears to be a transactional imprimatur and thus is essentially more in keeping with expected PPP propaganda when they are exposed for being incompetent and lacking in the sound legal, ethical and strategic reasoning this national crisis urgently requires.
