I HAVE always maintained that it is Venezuela’s-and not Guyana’s-recent display of activist and aggressive unilateralism that has increased tensions on the border issue before the world court. Venezuela’s position also disrespects and undermines the Office of the Secretary General of the UN.

It was a former UN secretary-general on whose wise judgment the border issue was referred, in 2018, to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its final legislative, legal, exclusive and equitable determination (as prescribed by the 1966 Geneva Agreement).

Why must Secretary General Antonio Guterres lump Guyana with Venezuela’s sabre-rattling?

It is the latter that is placing a spanner in the works of the ICJ-increasing instability, rejecting the adjudicative process of the ICJ, having failed twice to discredit the ICJ’s judicial process and the ICJ’s locus standi to preside over and finally determine this sore in Guyana-Venezuela relations.

It is Venezuela’s premature and injudicious introduction of a most threatening, illegal, outlandish consultative referendum set for consideration on December 3 that is exclusively ramping up tension, causing the ICJ to meet in Emergency Session this week to consider issuing an injunctive relief of provisional measures against Venezuela, at Guyana’s request, to hold its hand on its domestic referendum.

That illegal referendum is inconsistent with, is an affront to, undermines, compromises and infringes on the current proceedings before the ICJ. It is a calculated and deliberate affront to prejudice and prejudge the competence of the ICJ on the case before it. It also violates several provisions of the UN Charter that prohibit the use and/or threat of force to settle disputes extra-judiciously and upset the peace-andorder balance existing in the Caribbean region.

It appears UN Secretary General Guterres is following the lead set by Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados who blamed both parties for the ‘noises’ as she downplays the liquidation threat being faced by a fellow Caricom member.

Guterres ‘…is said to be following the ‘recent escalation of tension’ between the states with concern. He, however, urged both parties to act in ‘good faith’…’

‘In January 2018, after carefully analysing developments in the good offices process that had taken place over the preceding years, the Secretary General, in the exercise of the power and responsibility conferred on him by the 1966 Geneva Agreement, chose the International Court of Justice as the means that was next to be used for the solution of the border controversy between the two countries…’

Venezuela must take due note of, and respect, this affirmation issued by the Office of the UNSG, which is taking (and re-admitting) responsibility for referring the matter to the ICJ in accordance with the terms of the 1966 agreement.

This was after extensive diplomacy, unrestricted dialogue and his wellintentioned, dispassionate good offices role failed to bring about a negotiated settlement.

Venezuela must cease misinterpreting the 1966 agreement to suit its own militaristic and expansionist agenda to pressure Guyana to submit itself and to accept a pro-Venezuela diplomatic agreement and a new alternative border with Venezuela in the Essequibo Region border.

That will reduce Guyana’s current land area to 30,000 square miles and loss of a substantial part of its current claim to the extensive maritime areas off-shore stretching to 350 miles.

Stephen Kangal Caroni