Dear Editor,
A reading of the Venezuelan submission to the ICJ (28.11.2019) reveals the almost total dependence of Venezuela’s claim on the fact that the Geneva Agreement (GA) was entered into; that is to say, by agreeing to resolve the dispute caused by the claim, the claim was thereby recognized, ergo legitimate.
Retired Rear Admiral Dr. Gary Best, in an opinion piece for an online news outlet, posits: “Then Prime Minister Burnham had no control over the affairs of the colony of British Guiana”, and was thus not a principal signatory to the agreement; but in the next breath, Best describes the Geneva Agreement as “a master chess move by Forbes Burnham” (sic) (Demerara Waves 31.12.23), and Best asks: “Imagine where Guyana would have been had Cheddi Jagan succeeded as Prime Minister in 1964, and not signing such a well-constructed Geneva Agreement.”
Before any attempt to answer the question posed by Best is made, there has to be a careful examination of the very real consequences of Burnham’s signature on the GA and (Burnham’s) motivations.
For close to sixty years, Guyanese have held their tongues and their opinions of the GA for desire of unity, and to refrain from giving aid or comfort to our enemy. Now, however, the case is in the ICJ, and the GA will be under intense scrutiny.
My opinion holds that no lawyer worth tuppence would have willingly signed the GA, and no patriot would have put pen to paper to give the slightest credence to the Venezuelan claim. Cheddi Jagan, a Dentist, saw this easily. “Recognition was thus given to the spurious Venezuelan territorial claim, and what was a closed case since 1899 was re-opened” (The West on Trial, 1966).
Anyone reading the GA can see this, how then did Forbes Burnham, a lawyer, fail to see the obvious? Burnham had no mandate from the people; quite the opposite. He had clear objections from Jagan.
Then there was the issue of the American CIA money being paid to Burnham at the time, and the question must be asked if it came with demands and/or threats of exposure (blackmail) should he not comply with American directions.
Burnham left no clues as to his thinking and/or process. His personal life was also in turmoil; as, in 1966, he was in the midst of a divorce (he remarried in 1967), and none of the spouses wrote memoirs, and we are left grasping as to Burnham’s motivation/s for this colossal blunder.
Burnham signed the GA, and the Venezuelan interpretation is laid out thusly:
20. Article VIII of the Geneva Agreement provided that, once independent, Guyana would automatically become a party. Guyana achieved its independence and assumed all obligations contained in the Agreement. Venezuela proceeded to its recognition with an express reservation of its territorial claim over the territory west of the Essequibo River.
The territorial dispute was therefore inextricably linked to the birth of Guyana as an independent State. Guyana cannot ignore now its pending condition, or reduce it to the question of the validity of the 1899 Award on basis of a new interpretation of the Geneva Agreement.
The ICJ has ruled that Guyana’s interpretation of the GA is correct, and Venezuela erred when it supposed that the dispute cannot be settled judicially unless both parties consent to that course of action. Unfortunately, this has not dissuaded Venezuela from threatening annexation via force and war.
We now come to Best’s hypothesis of where we would be if Cheddi Jagan had been Prime Minister and refused to sign the GA. The short answer is the Venezuelan claim would have dissipated with the end of the Cold War. Mallet-Provost’s posthumous claims could not/would not stand scrutiny nor pass any credibility test. Guyana has at all times included the Essequibo territory, and Venezuela, for much of its existence, only settled as far as the Orinoco, a buffer zone of thousands of square miles of unoccupied territory that separated the countries until the late 19th century. Even now, Venezuela has little presence on its side of the border, as opposed to long-established and vibrant villages and townships on ours.
The Geneva Agreement never prevented an invasion of Guyana; proof of that is the illegal invasion and seizure of the eastern half of Ankoko Island by Venezuela’s armed forces in October of 1966. This is a clear breach of the GA, and is among the reliefs sought by Guyana at the ICJ.
One can argue whether Burnham had the authority to sign a document binding a country that did not yet exist and creating a dispute from a ‘spurious claim’, but it does not change the reality that we face an existential threat from a well-armed superior force because of the Geneva Agreement.
In contrast, the Argyle Agreement signed by President Dr. Irfaan Ali and objected to by Gary Best guarantees peace for as long as it holds; a welcome relief for all right-thinking Guyanese.
Guyanese would have been so much better off had the Geneva Agreement not been conceived or assented to by Forbes Burnham (whatever the motivations). It remains one of Burnham’s many follies that continue to affect the nation negatively long after his demise. Best can do better with his time in retirement than attempting to defend the unjustifiable actions of Forbes Burnham, the CIA’s ‘man’ in Guyana.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
