MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 2nd 2024 - 21:01 UTC

 

 

Presidents of Venezuela and Guyana prepare for Thursday's talks

Tuesday, December 12th 2023 - 10:22 UTC
Full article 3 comments
Maduro says he has a mandate but Ali insists sovereignty over the Essequibo was not to be on the table Maduro says he has a mandate but Ali insists sovereignty over the Essequibo was not to be on the table

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro insisted Monday that next Thursday's talks in St Vicent and the Grenadines between him and his Guyanese colleague Irfaan Ali were the direct result of the Dec. 3 referendum and, hence, an achievement of the Venezuelan people.

The head of state ratified that his country will never recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and therefore direct conversations between the two governments over the oil-rich Guyana Essequiba were due.

The Venezuelan leader made those remarks during his “Con Maduro +” TV show. “We achieved that face-to-face dialogue, it is a great achievement of the people of Venezuela, of the will, of the exercise of the sovereignty of the people of Venezuela. It is one of the first great achievements of the historic step of December 3, because this is solved by talking. I have said it in every way I can say it,” Maduro stressed.

He also said he had told United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres about Venezuela's decision not to recognize the ICJ any jurisdiction to settle “the dispute of the Guiana Essequiba.”

Maduro also spoke of the “cantaletas” (tantrums) by US oil company ExxonMobil which tried to prevent the Dec. 3 referendum from taking place: ”Guyana even went to the International Court to ask it to take away the right to vote of the Venezuelan people, and the anti-patriotic right-wing (...) here in Venezuela went out to say that the referendum should be suspended,“ Maduro argued.

Then they said ”it was not binding,“ he went on. But ”we demonstrated with the Constitution in hand (that) it is binding, it is obligatory, it is a mandate.“

”And the last chant that the ultra-right started (...) is to give orders to Venezuela to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as binding,” he added while highlighting that 119 countries (61% of the UN members) do not recognize a mandatory jurisdiction to the ICJ, including France, Guyana, and the United States.

Meanwhile, Ali ratified that Guyana’s stance regarding the Essequibo was non-negotiable and that there would be no compromise with Venezuela since the case is still before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), despite which he has agreed to engage in talks with Maduro.

“This matter is before the ICJ and that is where it shall be settled. There are no negotiations on this, there’s no compromise on this. As you’re aware, the ICJ has already issued orders that called on Venezuela to ensure that the status quo remains,” Ali said.

“We are tremendously proud of the level of partnership, the expanded partnership, the strength of our partnership,” with allies.

“Guyanese are committed to peace; we are committed to every action that will ensure that this region remains a region of peace and a region of stability. We have a commitment to this region to work together to ensure the prosperity, the stability of our region. We have no objection to any conversation with Venezuela with the aim of ensuring the stability of our region,” he said.

Ali insisted, though, that that border controversy was explicitly laid out in the 1899 Arbitral Award, and through the Geneva Agreement of 1966, the ICJ was designated by the UN Secretary-General as the appropriate body for the resolution of this issue. Guyana is open to actions fostering positive relationships between the two countries, Ali also explained.

“I made it very clear to them that we have no objections to a conversation, but on the issue of the border controversy, our position is very clear. In the interests of regionalism, in the interests of peace and stability and good neighborly relations, the coexistence of two countries sharing a border, Guyana is always up for any actions that will enhance relationships,” he said.

“I made it very clear that on the issue of the border controversy, Guyana’s position is not negotiable… we expect that good sense will prevail and the commitment to peace and stability will be maintained, and the threat of disruption will cease,” Ali went on.

“And I assure all Guyanese, all investors, our development in all administrative regions, all three of the counties will continue unimpeded. [We will] continue to push our investment or investors to work aggressively to bring prosperity to our country and by extension to our region,” he added.

“Let us understand that as a nation, as people, once we stand on the side of principle and stand for what is right, with our good friends and allies, who we also pray for, we will always be victorious,” Ali also pointed out.

 

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Terence Hill

    My contention remains that a confluence of several political factors led to Venezuela claiming the Award was “null and void”, rather than any legal grounds supported by the posthumous publication in 1949 of an allegation by Severo Mallet-Prevost, Venezuela’s legal counsel, that the tribunal had acquiesced to a back-room deal between Russia and Great Britain. As such, Guyana correctly refused to enter into subsequent negotiations with Venezuela – either directly or through arbitrators as Colombia did – but after a long and tortuous process used the Geneva Agreement to have the Venezuelan-generated controversy over the status of the Arbitral Award, decided by the ICJ.“
    https://www.stabroeknews.com/2023/11/26/opinion/letters/my-contention-remains-that-confluence-of-political-factors-led-to-venezuela-claiming-1899-award-was-null-and-void/

    In 1899 the issue was settled, late claims are closed under the principles of the ”common-law legal systems, laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ LAT-chiz /ˈleɪtʃɪz/; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.

    The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights”, and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed (witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc.), such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff's claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity: “Equity aids the vigilant” - not those who sleep on their rights. Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.”
    https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

    Dec 13th, 2023 - 09:31 pm -2
  • Chicureo

    Skippy's fraudulent identity as T.Hill can easily accessible on his YouTube channel...

    https://youtu.be/LBBrSSyp7_M?si=_f8mBaSqznAIQUGK

    Let's hope he seeks medical advice soon...

    ¡Saludos de Panquehue!

    Dec 14th, 2023 - 04:51 pm -2
  • Terence Hill

    “Skippy's fraudulent identity as T.Hill can easily accessible on his YouTube channel”

    Proof is all “An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
    Ignoring the Burden of Proof http ://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm

    As former SAC T.L. Hill, 18 Squadron, RAF, March 1963.
    Oh what shame I get to prove yet again what a malignant narcissist lying bag of shite you really are.
    https://imgur.com/a/WDPeU

    Dec 14th, 2023 - 06:44 pm -2
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!