Speaker
Justice Fernando Ramón Vegas Torrealba
in the Forum
sponsored by the Supreme Court
 |
| Justice Inocencio Antonio Figueroa Arizaleta |
Outline of the Presentation
Title Deeds of Spain as the
power of the discovery and the first European occupant:
Alexander VI Papal Bull of
1493
Treaty of Tordesillas of
1494
Titles Deeds of Holland
Treaty of Münster of 1648
(Spain and the Netherlands). During the period of peace of Westphalia, Spain
cedes the “establishments” of Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo to the east of
the Essequibo River, to Holland.
The Dutch attempted to
establish posts west of the Essequibo River at the mouth of Pomaron River and
at the confluence of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers.
Spain considered such
actions as violations of the Treaty of Münster and politically and military fought
against it.
 |
| Rivers involved in the treaties |
Title Deeds of Great
Britain
The Treaty of London in
1814 (Holland and Great Britain). England receives from Holland the cession of
the “establishments” of Demerara,
Berbice and Essequibo, which had already been seized by England since 1796.
Spain never ceded any
territory west of the Essequibo to Holland, so by no means could this last
country have relinquished territories to Great Britain on that side of the
Essequibo.
Title
Deeds of Venezuela
1).- As the
heir of Spain, Venezuela is the legitimate owner of all the territories of
the Captaincy General of Venezuela, created in 1777 (Royal Chart of King
Charles III) which included the territory of Guyana up to the Essequibo River
to the East and the Uassary Mountain Range to the South.
 |
Captaincy General of Venezuela
(1777)
|
 |
| Boundaries
of Venezuela in 1810, year of the Venezuelan Independence from the Reign of Spain |
2).- The
maps printed in London before 1814, when Great Britain received from Holland
the later called British Guiana, point to the Essequibo River as its western
boundary. For example, the Cruz Cano Map (Juan de la Cruz and Olmedilla) of
1765, published by General Francisco de Miranda under the auspices of the
British Government in 1799.
 |
| Cruz Cano Map |
 |
| Detail of the Cruz Cano Map |
 |
| Detail of the Cruz Cano Map |
 |
| Missions
of the Caroni. Made by the Capuchin monks (1593 – 1799) Spanish Fort on the western bank of the Essequibo River |
3).- The
Great Colombia, of which Venezuela was part, duly informed Great Britain
through its diplomatic representatives: Zea (1821), Revenga (1823), Hurtado
(1824) and Gual (1825) that its boundary to the east with British Guiana was
the Essequibo River.
 |
| Acknowledgement
of Spain. Treaty of Madrid 1845 |
4).- When
Spain acknowledged the independence of Venezuela through the Treaty of Madrid
on March 30, 1845, it refers to the entire territory “known by the name of
Captaincy General of Venezuela”, including the Venezuelan province of Guayana,
with the Essequibo River as its eastern boundary.
The claims of England:
1).- The original Schomburgk
boundary of 1835 pointed to the Essequibo River as the western boundary of
British Guiana, separating from it just 45 miles before reaching the coast line,
from the confluence of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers with the Essequibo River up
to the mouth of the Moroco River, by which 4,920 km2 of Venezuelan territory
was being usurped.
2).- The Schomburgk boundary
of 1840 which drew the boundary of British Guiana much farther to the west of
the Essequibo River, usurping a territory of 141,930 km2. After the protest of
Venezuela, the British government agreed to remove the demarcating posts they
had placed, and in 1850 both countries accepted a modus vivendi by which
both would abstain from any aggressions and occupations until the controversy
was resolved.
3).- With the discovery of
gold deposits in the region of Yuruari in 1880, Great Britain published a map
that included that territory increasing the territorial usurpation to 167,830
km2.
4).- The extended boundary of
Schomburgk/Hebert of 1887 moved once again the English boundary into Venezuela
territory as far as Upata, increasing the seizure to 203,310 km2.
 |
| Boundaries traces by Schomburgk and others |
Details of the description
of the map:
01).- THE SCHOMBURGK
BOUNDARY is taken from the Schomburgk Map annexed in his book: “A
Description of the British Guiana”, published in London in 1840.
02).- THE FORTIQUE
BOUNDARY is taken from the note written by Doctor Fortique, Minister of
Venezuela in England, to Lord Alberdeen on January 31, 1844.
03).- THE ALBERDEEN
BOUNDARY is traced according to the description in the “Yellow Book” of
Venezuela, 1891, pages 24-25. Also see the memorandum by Mr. Andrade to Mr.
Gresham on March 31, 1894, published in “The United States Foreign Relations”,
1894.
04).- THE CONSEJO-VISO
BOUNDARY is taken from the map of several boundary lines published in
Caracas in 1890. “Yellow Book” of Venezuela, 1891, pages 25-26.
05).- THE ROJAS BOUNDARY
is drawn according to the description contained in the note by Dr. J. M. Rojas,
Minister of Venezuela, to Lord Granville, February 21, 1881.
06).- THE GRANVILLE
BOUNDARY follows the description indicated in the memorandum attached to
the note of Lord Granville of September 15, 1881 to Dr. J.N. Rojas.
07).- THE ROSEBERY
BOUNDARY OF 1886 is traced according to the one described in the memorandum
of Lord Rosebery to General Guzman Blanco, Minister of Venezuela in England,
attached to his note of July 30, 1886.
08).- THE ALTERED
SCHOMBURGK BOUNDARY is taken from the map “Part of the British Guiana and
Venezuela”, published in the “Acts of the Royal Geographic Society”, April
1895.
09).- THE SALISBURY
BOUNDARY is taken from the map of several boundaries cited above, published
in Caracas in 1890. This boundary appears in the map known as “The Capricious
Boundary of the Arbitrage” and evidently it refers to the memorandum written by
Sir T. Sanderson under the instructions of the Marquis of Salisbury, to Dr.
Modesto Urbaneja, Venezuelam Agent in London, on March 19, 1890.
10).- THE “EXTREME
ENGLISH CLAIM” BOUNDARY taken from the cited Venezuelan map of 1890. Also
see the memorandum of March, 19, 1890 by Lord Salisbury to Dr. Urbaneja.
11).- THE SANDERSON
BOUNDARY taken from the handwritten note of Sir T. Sanderson titled:
“Personal Indication” passed on to Dr. Lucio Pulido, Venezuelan Agent in
London, 1890.
12).- THE ROSEBERY
BOUNDARY OF 1893 was proposed as the western boundary of the territory
under dispute by Lord Rosebery in his response to Mr. Michelena, Venezuelan
Agent in London, May 26, 1893.
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH
CLAIM IN GUIANA.
In 1814, England acquired
from the Dutch around 20,000 square miles of land in Guiana.
From 1839 to 1841 Sir
Robert Schomburgk was commissioned, without knowledge or consent of Venezuela,
to trace a boundary that covered close to 60,000 square miles of the territory.
By 1885 this territory
expanded by force of alterations of the mentioned boundary until it reached
76,000 square miles.
The following year it
increased abruptly to 109,000 square miles.
Venezuela has never
acknowledged any of these boundaries not even as a sign of territory under
dispute.
The Treaty of Washington of February 2, 1897
(Arbitral Compromise)
-Great Britain
refused an arbitrage.
-Venezuela
requested assistance from de USA so that the English would accept sitting in
conversations or an arbitrage.
-President
Grover Cleveland ordered a study of the Venezuelan title deeds and accepted to
help, applying the Monroe Doctrine.
-Meetings
began in Washington between the Secretary of State Richard Olney, the English
ambassador in the northamerican capital Sir Julian Pauncefote and our envoy
extraordinary and plenipotentiary José Andrade.
-Andrade
is left out while Olney and Pauncefote met and traced the bases of the Treaty which were unbelievably harmful to our national interests:
a) The
application of the Monroe Doctrine: The Court of Arbitrage, was integrated by
five members, two for each of the interested counterparts and a neutral member
designated by the other four members, while the Venezuelan representation was
left to the two members from the United States.
b) The
application of the legal prescription (statutes of limitations) of 50 years to
legitimate by occupation, when all of the Venezuelan Constitutions after 1864,
considered the national territory inalienable.
Conclusion: The Treaty of
Washington was unacceptable.
The Arbitral Ruling of Paris of October 3, 1899
Vices of the Arbitral Ruling:
1. It is an unmotivated
verdict. Contrary to the Convention of The Hague for the Peaceful Resolution of
International Controversies of July 29, 1899, Article 52.
2. It resolves the matter
through a transaction or settlement which was not authorized nor anticipated in
the arbitral compromise of Washington of 1897.
3. The Ruling judged on
matters that were not part of the arbitrage such as the concession of free
navigation in the Barima and Amacuro Rivers (Ultra Vires).
4. The posthumous
memorandum of Severo Mallet Prevost.
As soon as the result of
the Arbitral Ruling was known and with it the consummation of the spoliation of
the territory that historically and legitimately belonged to Venezuela, the
government protested. However, the atmosphere of international pressures on the
government, did not allow any of the claims to progress. The Venezuelan ports
were militarily blocked from 1900 to 1906 by several countries (Great Britain,
Italy and Germany) for debt. VENEZUELA WAS UNDER ATTACK AND COERCION. Under
these circumstances, the Mixed Committee of Frontiers of Great Britain and
Venezuela fixed the boundaries according to the arbitral ruling of Paris in
1905.
Later claims of Venezuela
in which the vices of the Arbitral Ruling were exposed and the “peculiarities
by which its frontier boundary was defined”:
The “ESTOPPEL” doctrine of
approval by silence cannot be applied because of the coercion suffered by
Venezuela and because we never stopped protesting the spoliation of which we
were victim. According to the International Court of Justice, the Estoppel
doctrine must be based on the legitimacy of the person who acts and must be
supported by an unequivocal and unconditional fact.
Mainly after knowing about
the posthumous memorandum of Severo Mallet Prevost which appeared in July 1949,
we have been prolix in our claim:
-In the 4th
Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers of the American Continent in March 1951.
-In the 10th Interamerican Conference in March 1954
-1st Extraordinary
Interamerican Conference of the OAS on December 18, 1964
-In February 1962, Venezuela officially posted the claim on the Essequibo
against Great Britain in the UN, presenting the case before the 4th
Commission of the General Assembly.
-In August 1962, Venezuela
requested the inclusion of the claim in the program of the 17th
period of sessions of the UN General Assembly which took place on September 19,
1962, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marcos Falcon Briceño, intervened.
In the debate Great Britain and the US also intervened.
-From that date, the tripartite
conversations began among Foreign Affairs Departments of Great Britain,
Venezuela and British Guiana to deal with the Venezuelan claim.
-The conversations continue
all of that year and the following until 1965.
The Treaty of Geneva of
February 17, 1966
-This Treaty was signed as a consequence of the Venezuelan contention
that the Arbitral Ruling of Paris of 1899 is null and void. This contention caused
the signing of the Agreement.
-Mixed committees
(tripartite) were designated where the parties discussed directly the solutions
for the controversy. Sessions were to be held for four (4) years.
-If there was no agreement,
the peaceful means of solutions established in Article 33 of the Chart of the
UN, were to be applied.
-By having signed the
Geneva Treaty, Guiana cannot invoke the effects of Res Judicata.
-On May 26, 1966 (three
months after the Geneva Treaty), Great Britain grants independence to British
Guiana.
-The same day (May 26,
1966), Venezuela issues a Note by which recognizes the new State confirming the
claim that the Venezuelan East frontier is the Essequibo River.
-On August 19, 1966, the
Republic of Guyana responded the note, thanking for it and invoking that its
boundaries to the west were as defined by the Demarcating Commission of
Boundaries according to the Agreement of 1905.
Protocol of Port of Spain
of June 18, 1970
When the four years
expired, taken from the signing date of the Geneva Treaty (Feb. 17,1966),
during which the Mixed Commissions met with no results, it was imperative to
submit the affair to the solutions established in Article 33 of the Chart of
the UN.
Venezuela, Great Britain
and the Republic of Guyana decided to suspend the application of the Geneva
Agreement for 12 years. Consequently, the Protocol of Port of Spain was then
signed and annexed to the Geneva Treaty.
Six months before the
expiration of the twelve year period, the Venezuelan Government decided not to
renew the Protocol and instead remit the matter to the General Secretary of the
UN to submit the Venezuelan contention to article 33 of the Chart.
Present situation of the
Claim of our Territory in the Essequibo
-Since 1989 until 2014,
according to the application of Article 33 of the Chart of the UN, through the
intervention of the UN Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar. The parties
accepted the figure of the Good Officiator to mediate in the search for a
peaceful solution.
-Three Good Officiator have
acted: Alistair McIntyre (1989-1998), Oliver Jackman (1999-2007+) and Norman
Girvan (2010-2014+).
-During the past fifteen
years several acts and/or occupations by The Cooperative Republic of Guyana
have attempted against the Treaty of Geneva. These events are contrary to the
mandate of the Geneva Agreement according to Article V (2), by which: “No new
claim or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in these
territories (of Venezuela and British Guiana) shall be asserted while this
Agreement is in force, nor shall any other claim whatsoever be asserted …”. It is a situation of
maintaining the status quo while the Agreement is in force, known to the
Anglo-Saxons as a stand still.
-On May 19, 2000, the
enterprise Beal Aerospace Technology, Inc. agreed with the Guyanese government
to install a platform in the Zone of Reclamation for the launching of rockets.
The affair was strongly protested by President Hugo Chavez and on October 26 of
the same year, the president of the enterprise informed the halt of the
operations.
-On October 10, 2013, the
ship for oceanographic research RV Technic Perdana sailed into Venezuelan
maritime space and was seized by the Venezuelan Bolivarian Navy. It was
liberated days after and Venezuela called for the parties to resume the affair about
the contention Venezuela has with the Cooperative Republic of Guyana
regarding the Eastern border of our
territory within the frame of the Treaty of Geneva.
-On February 28, 2015, the
Guyanese government granted exploratory concessions to ExxonMobil in the
maritime space within the territorial area of the Zone of Reclamation and the
company assigned working operations to the ship Deepwater Champion.
-This action was protested
by the National Government receiving in exchange strong venomous expressions of
rejection that came close to insults by the highest authorities of the
Cooperative Republic of Guyana, particularly from President David Granger and
the Foreign Affairs Minister, Carl Greenidge.
-Analyzing the performance
of the ExxonMobil, of the Guyanese government and of the more radical rightist
sectors that dwell in the Department of State and other organizations of the US
government, we could be in the presence of an attempt to create an escalation
of tensions that could allow the occurrence of a casus belli against
Venezuela directed against the sovereignty, the stability and the peace of the
country.
Continuation of the application
of the Geneva Treaty of 1966
-The Venezuelan Government decided
the State Policy of demanding compliance with the Geneva Treaty and has
received support from the entire nation.
-The return to the way of
the Geneva Treaty should be assertive and directed to the resolution of the
claim presented by Venezuela according to the terms established in the
Agreement.
-The solution should
resolve three vital points:
1. The issue of the
validity of the Arbitral Compromise contained in the Treaty of Washington of
February 2, 1897.
2. The issue of the validity
of the Arbitral Ruling of Paris of October 3, 1899
3. Resolution of the core
of the claim: The determination of the boundary between Venezuela and the
British ex-colony according to the title deeds each counterpart has of the
territory in discussion.
Caracas, August 10, 2015
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario