The Trail Of Diplomacy

Despite this letter from the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, forces close to the Venezuelan Government continued to beat the war-drums. On the 17 July 1982, the Commander of the Venezuelan Navy, Vice-Admiral Rafael Bertorelli, speaking at a news conference in Caracas, stated that Venezuela was not discarding the use of military force as a means of settling the territorial issue.

At the news conference, Bertorelli announced a long list of military hardware which was on order by the Venezuelan navy. They included the planned purchase of four 4000-ton transport ships (valued at 20 million US dollars each) which could be used for amphibious landings, and six Italian frigates each costing 50 million US dollars and capable of carrying missiles and torpedoes. In referring to the border issue, he said, "Venezuela will exhaust all efforts in search of a peaceful solution of the border dispute, but that does not mean it rules out the use of the military road."

Further revelations on the arms build-up by Venezuela were made by El Diario de Caracas on the 20 July. The paper revealed that Venezuela's Defence Minister, General Luis Navaez Churion, had confirmed that Venezuela was seeking to buy 25 multiple missile systems from Israel.

With the alarm being spread that the planned military build-up by Venezuela was aimed against Guyana, the British High Commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago, Michael Cooke, in responding to questions on the border issue advanced by members of the South Trinidad Chamber of Industry and Commerce on the 20 July, stated:

Britain has a residual and moral obligation to assist Guyana in the event that her sovereignty is invaded by another country. . . While Britain has the residual obligation to assist, it cannot adjudicate or act on behalf of Guyana unless invited to do so. . .

At the beginning of August 1982, President Campins began a series of visits to a number of Latin American and Caribbean countries with the aim of explaining his country's position on the border issue and, according to a Financial Times report on the 3 August, to whip up support for the Venezuelan view. The report said that the trips to Nicaragua, Jamaica, Colombia and the Dominican Republic formed part of "a vigorous diplomatic offensive" by Venezuela to promote its claim.

In Jamaica, President Campins met with Prime Minister Edward Seaga, and the two leaders expressed the hope that a practical and peaceful solution could be found to the territorial issue. The President also met with the Leader of the People's National Party (PNP) and Opposition Leader, Michael Manley, who took the opportunity to reiterate his party's support for Guyana on the issue. In a statement on the 6 August, Manley insisted that any settlement must be fashioned with respect for the concept of territorial integrity.

Meanwhile, in Caracas, 68 persons were sworn in as members of the "Essequibo Committee" that would advise the Venezuelan Government on matters relating to the border issue. Members of the Committee, which comprised representatives of the nation's political parties and several high-ranking military persons, also included Foreign Minister, Jose' Zambrano Velasco and seven former Foreign Ministers. They included Iribarren Borges who signed the 1966 Geneva Agreement, and Aristides Calvani who signed the 1970 Protocol of Port of Spain. Another member was Walter Brandt, a former Ambassador to Guyana.

The August 1982 issue of the Caribbean Contact, in a front-page comment on the territorial claims to Belize and Guyana by Guatemala and Venezuela, respectively, stated categorically that no CARICOM state should take any neutral stand on these issues. The paper stated:

We sense that while CARICOM Governments have been clear in their support of Belize in rejecting Guatemala's claim to her entire 8,886 square miles of territory, some of them have not been forthright and unequivocal when it comes to backing Guyana in resisting Venezuela's claim to five-eights of Guyana's 83,000 square miles of territory.

We do not wish to cast doubts on the sincerity of any CARICOM Government when it says that it wishes a peaceful solution to the border rows involving the two CARICOM members and OAS members, Venezuela and Guatemala. But we do hope that the financial and other forms of assistance they are receiving from Venezuela will in no way compromise CARICOM Governments into a neutral position on the Guyana-Venezuela dispute. Like the Belizean people, the Guyanese people will be justified in regarding neutrality on the part of any CARICOM Government as negative support.

Having greatly contributed to arming Venezuela with F-16 fighters, etc., and not willing to remind either of its strong allies, Guatemala or Venezuela, of the importance in abiding with the decisions of the international tribunals that have ruled on the existing borders between the English-speaking countries and their Spanish-speaking neighbours, the United States cannot honestly plead neutrality on the territorial disputes. In fact, there are reasons for suspicions on where the USA stand on these disputes that are jeopardising the development of Guyana and Belize and also the peace and stability of this region.

We advocate nothing less than unequivocal unanimity by a CARICOM Summit, wherever it takes place, in firmly calling on Guatemala and Venezuela to demonstrate respect for the inherited international borders of Belize and Guyana and appreciation for the sovereignty of these two CARICOM states. To merely call for a "peaceful resolution" of the territorial disputes and to signal, for whatever reason, and however vaguely, neutrality to either Guatemala or Venezuela, will not be friendly to either of the CARICOM partners facing territorial aggression. . .

A declaration calling for the peaceful resolution of all disputes and respect for the territorial integrity of Latin American and Caribbean nations was signed during the first week in August in Bogota, Colombia, on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Colombian President, Bolisario Betancur. The declaration stressed that prompt and peaceful settlement be sought to the conflicts and controversies in the region. It was signed by a number of heads of states and representatives of various Governments. Among the signatories were President Campins of Venezuela. Guyana's Foreign Minister, Rashleigh Jackson, who represented President Burnham at the inauguration, signed on behalf of the Guyana Government.

Among the dignitaries attending the inauguration ceremony was the US Vice President, George Bush with whom Jackson met and took the opportunity to explain Guyana's stand on the border issue with Venezuela.

On the 20 August 1982, the Guyana Government officially responded to the letter of the Venezuelan Foreign Minister of the 1 July. A letter to this effect addressed to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister was handed to the Venezuelan Charge d'Affaires in the Venezuelan Embassy in Georgetown, Csisky Rodriguez, by the Guyanese Foreign Minister. It stated:

. . . I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter to me of July 1, 1982 in which you referred to the resumption of operation of the procedure stipulated in Article IV of the Geneva Agreement and advised that the Government of the Republic of Venezuela was now formally proposing for the consideration of the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana the adoption of the first means of peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, namely, "direct negotiations between the parties".

Having given the most careful consideration to the proposal of the Government of the Republic of Venezuela for the adoption of negotiation as the means of settlement, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana finds itself unable to accept the proposal.

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana accordingly hereby proposes for the consideration of the Government of the Republic of Venezuela the adoption of judicial settlement as the means of settlement to be chosen from among those provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana strongly urges the desirability of judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice and will be grateful for its acceptance by the Government of the Republic of Venezuela. . .

On the day after the letter was issued, unofficial reports from Caracas claimed that Venezuela was not interested in resolving the issue by judicial settlement. An Inter Press Service (IPS) report on the 21 August from the Venezuelan capital quoted Venezuelan Foreign Minister Zambrano as saying that the Guyana proposals did not objectively correspond with the letter and spirit of the Geneva Agreement which, he contended, the two countries selected in 1966 as the "adequate political and judicial framework" for resolving the matter. He was also stated that he found it "incomprehensible" that "such an open invitation as Venezuela's formula for negotiations drew Guyana's proposals for judicial means".

In a comment on the IPS report, Guyana's Foreign Minister, Rashleigh Jackson, according to the Guyana Chronicle of the 26 August, said that he was "surprised and deeply disturbed" by the reactions coming from Venezuelan sources. He noted that "clarity of thought, always an important requirement in the conduct of inter-state relations, is even more necessary at this stage to avoid perpetuating or creating confusion and misunderstanding". He explained that the disposition of the Guyana Government to talk with the Venezuelan Government was demonstrated by the acceptance by President Burnham of an invitation to visit Venezuela in 1981. Jackson further explained:

We have consistently maintained a willingness to talk to Venezuela about our relations during the period of the Protocol of Port of Spain. This position of the Government of Guyana has been oft-times repeated by the Comrade President and other spokesmen.

Indeed this position was confirmed by me to Dr. Zambrano when I met him in May last year during the Conference on Economic Co-operation among Developing Countries (ECDC) in Venezuela which he chaired, as well as to Ambassador Garavini on several occasions up to February 4 this year when specific ideas were discussed with him. My meetings with the Foreign Minister and his Ambassador last year and this year were talks.

It was a firm policy of the Government of Guyana in seeking to develop normal and friendly relations with other States and not to eschew dialogue, Jackson explained. He added that to confuse such a willingness to talk with the exercise in accordance with Article IV of the Geneva Agreement of a specific choice of one of the means of peaceful settlement, provided by Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, as absurd. He pointed out: "Negotiations after all is only one of the means specified in that Article."

Commenting on Zambrano's statement that Guyana's choice was "incomprehensible", Jackson stated:

Can Dr. Zambrano say whether Guyana is entitled to choose "judicial settlement" under the provisions of the Geneva Agreement? The Government of Venezuela is entitled to propose "negotiation". Equally, the Government of Guyana is entitled to propose "judicial settlement" The only thing incomprehensible is Dr. Zambrano's reaction.

On the 25 August, the Guyana National Assembly, acting on a resolution passed on the 8 July condemning Venezuela's claim to the western Essequibo, nominated a nine-member "all-party" committee to be known as "The Parliamentary Committee on the Territorial Integrity of Guyana". Prime Minister, Dr. Reid, told the Assembly that the nine members were identified after consultation and agreement with the PPP. Five were nominated from the PNC, three from the PPP and one from the UF. The Vice President for the Party and State Relations, Cammie Ramsaroop, was named as Chairman of the Committee. Other PNC nominees were Foreign Minister, Rashleigh Jackson, Energy and Mines Minister, Hubert Jack, P. Fredericks and K.V. Jairam. The PPP members named were Ram Karran, Reepu Daman Persaud and Clinton Collymore. The lone UF nominee was its leader, Marcellus Fielden-Singh.

The official Venezuelan reply to the Guyana proposal was handed to Guyana's Ambassador in Caracas, Rudolph Collins, on the 30 August, by Foreign Minister Zambrano. The letter written to Jackson stated:

I have the honour of referring to your Note of August 20, 1982 by which the Government of Guyana responded to the Note of the Venezuelan Government dated July 2, 1982 (sic).

In its Note the Government of Guyana indicated it could not accept the Venezuelan proposal to choose negotiations as a means of seeking a satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the outstanding territorial controversy and proposed instead to submit the matter to judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice.

The Government of Venezuela notes that a friendly invitation to negotiate has once again received a response which does not even suggest a willingness to discuss or even to listen. Venezuela therefore considers it necessary to point out that full compliance with the Geneva Agreement is impossible where no consideration is given to negotiation as a means of resolving the substantive question and is of the opinion that the counter proposal of the Government of Guyana represents a step away from the fulfilment of the objective of this Treaty.

The Geneva Agreement, in effect, expressly states that its objective is to examine the existing controversy in respect of the boundary between Venezuela and Guyana (formerly British Guiana) so that the controversy could be resolved in a friendly manner acceptable to both parties. Article I of the Geneva Agreement also defines the objectives which its signatories set themselves as well as the very nature of this international instrument by stipulating that the parties were obliged to seek "satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the controversy".

From this perspective and with the aim of fulfilling its obligations, Venezuela has maintained from the inception of the work of the Mixed Commission that the solution of the controversy under the terms of the Geneva Agreement must meet two conditions: firstly, it must be of a practical nature, that is, not theoretical, speculative or exclusively juridical and, secondly, it must be acceptable to both parties.

As conceived under the Geneva Agreement, the settlement of the controversy must take account of the principles of equity, natural justice and ethics. Venezuela has therefore consistently maintained a position of willingness to consider any means capable of achieving a practical solution which is acceptable to both parties, in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Agreement. In this sense, it maintains its readiness to examine not only aspects which are exclusively linked to the territorial controversy per se, but also areas of our total bilateral relations which could contribute to a solution of the problems referred to above.

Before the signing of the Geneva Agreement and even moreso after its signing, we strongly urged negotiation as a means of solution of the present controversy because only by recourse to diplomatic means can a just and practical settlement be achieved which would be acceptable and satisfactory to both parties.

It must therefore be concluded that the means proposed by the Government of Guyana is not suited to the aims and objectives of the Geneva Agreement.

Consequent upon all the above, I therefore wish to reiterate on behalf of the Government of Venezuela the invitation to negotiate on the widest of bases possible in the search for a satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the controversy. . .

On the 1 September, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Zambrano, left for Brazil to discuss with senior Brazilian officials his country's position on the claim to western Essequibo. During his two-day visit, he held discussions with Ramiro Seraiva Guerreira, the Brazilian Foreign Minister.

Just before Zambrano's left for his Brazilian visit, according to the Caracas English-language Daily Journal of the 2 September, he predicted that a method of solving the issue would have to be selected by the UN Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar. On the other hand, according to the same paper, Rudolph Collins, the Guyana Ambassador to Caracas, told the Latin American Economic System (SELA) convention which was being held in the Venezuelan capital, that since the Geneva Agreement specified a number of measures to find a satisfactory solution, the Venezuelan Government exercised the right to propose negotiations as one of the methods. However, he added, "We, examining the Venezuelan proposal, believe that the best way to resolve the controversy is through the International Court of Justice."

Meanwhile, at the end of his visit to Brazil, Zambrano, according to an Associated Press dispatch on the 3 September, accused Guyana of preparing for war while at the same time blaming Venezuela for using aggression. On the same day, in another Associated Press report from Caracas, former Venezuelan President, Rafael Caldera -- by then a declared candidate of COPEI for the December 1983 Presidential election -- insisted that it would be a tragic error if Venezuela used military force to settle the territorial issue unless there were significant changes in international conditions.

Early in September 1982, Guyana's Permanent Representative at the UN, Noel Sinclair, held talks with the UN Secretary General on the border issue. Shortly after, on the 6 September, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister who was on a visit to the USA, also held discussions with the Secretary General to update him on the Venezuelan position. Zambrano told the Secretary General that negotiation must be entered into as a first step to the resolution of the crisis, and claimed that the "letter and spirit of the Geneva Agreement" insisted upon this.

Meanwhile, in the border region itself a number of provocative incidents occurred between the 3 and 5 September. On the 3 September, a Venezuelan helicopter, manned by military personnel, approached Guyanese territory from a westerly direction and attempted to land at the Baramita airstrip in the North West District. Guyanese soldiers fired a warning burst of several rounds and the helicopter was forced to fly away. According to the Guyana Foreign Affairs Ministry, the helicopter attempted to land at two other places in Guyanese territory but was prevented from doing so. On the afternoon of 5 September, Venezuelan soldiers dressed in camouflage uniforms attempted to land at a military observation post on Guyanese territory near Eteringbang, but after warning shots were fired by the Guyanese soldiers, the Venezuelans withdrew.

A Note of Protest about these incidents was on the 7 September handed by the Guyana Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Venezuelan Ambassador, Dr. Sadio Garavini.

On the same day the Guyana protest was lodged, the acting Director of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, Francisco Paproni, admitted that a Venezuelan helicopter overflew Guyanese territory. Paproni stated (according to the Guyana Chronicle of the 14 September) that "a civilian helicopter was transporting a sick national guard" and that "experts in aviation affirm that from Boniche, the point where the helicopter took off, aircraft are obliged to overfly the Essequibo on account of the wind direction".

However, on the 8 September, the Venezuelan acting Foreign Minister, Garcia Bustillos, denied that any of the incidents mentioned in the protest occurred. He claimed (as also reported in the Guyana Chronicle of the 14 September) that "the people of Venezuela must know that there has been for a long time an orchestrated campaign to present us as the aggressor country".

On the 19 September 1982, the Guyana Government officially responded to the Venezuelan letter of the 30 August which rejected Guyana's proposal for judicial settlement. The response was in the form of a letter from the Guyanese Foreign Minister to his Venezuelan counterpart. It stated:

. . . I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter to me of August 30, 1982, in response to mine of August 20, 1982, in which pursuant to Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana proposed "for the consideration of the Government of the Republic of Venezuela the adoption of judicial settlement as the means of settlement to be chosen among those provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations".

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana has noted with care the arguments advanced by the Government of the Republic of Venezuela for reiterating its preference for negotiation as the means of peaceful settlement of the controversy which, as stated on the Geneva Agreement, "has arisen as the result of the Venezuelan contention that the arbitral award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void". The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana has not, however, been persuaded to accept the correctness of those arguments or the conclusions in which they issue to the effect "that the means proposed by the Co-operative Republic is not suited to the aims and objectives of the Geneva Agreement" and "represents a step away from the fulfilment of the objectives of this treaty".

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is disappointed with so summary, peremptory and seemingly irrevocable a dismissal of one of the means of peaceful settlement contemplated by Article IV of the Geneva Agreement through its clear requirement for a selection to be made of one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, which explicitly include both negotiation and judicial settlement.

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana expects the Government of the Republic of Venezuela to respect the right of the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana to propose judicial settlement and to reiterate that proposal. As your letter of August 20 demonstrates no evidence of recognition of that right, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana earnestly requests the Government of the Republic of Venezuela to reconsider the former's proposal for judicial settlement as both properly made under Article IV of the Geneva Agreement and well adapted to deal with the controversy in an independent, impartial and objective manner.

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana finds incomprehensible the surprising attempt by the Government of the Republic of Venezuela to portray the fact that the former has proposed judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice (as it was unquestionably entitled to do under the Geneva Agreement) as evidence of unwillingness "to discuss or at least to listen".

Altogether, apart from the Geneva Agreement, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is and always has been willing to engage in dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Venezuela on all matters of mutual interest. The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Venezuela will therefore be willing to embark with the Government of the Republic of Venezuela on diplomatic discussions on all matters of relevance to the promotion of understanding, co-operation and peace between our two neighbouring countries.

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana however considers that any such diplomatic discussions must be a separate and distinct matter from the present question, which, as was formally raised in your letter to me on July 1, 1982 (not July 2, 1982, as mentioned in your letter of August 30) is limited to the selection of one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for under Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. . .

On the 13 September, the nine-member Parliamentary Committee on the Territorial Integrity of Guyana held its first meeting when it discussed the diplomatic advances made by Guyana.

On the 18 September, three months after the ending of the Protocol of Port of Spain, no mutual agreement on solving the issue was arrived at by Guyana and Venezuela. As a result, both countries were now expected to refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they should both agree. If an agreement was not reached on which appropriate international organ the question should be referred to, then the Secretary General of the United Nations, according to the terms of the Geneva Agreement, would eventually be requested by both parties to choose a method of peaceful settlement, as stated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, i.e., judicial, negotiation, fact-finding, inquiry, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, or resort to regional agencies or UN bodies.

The Guyana Permanent Representative (Ambassador) at the UN, Noel Sinclair, on the day before the three-month period elapsed, declared that Guyana would place no restrictions on the Secretary General or specify a time limit for his efforts.

On the 19 September, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Zambrano wrote to Jackson stating that since the three-month period had elapsed during which the two sides could not reach agreement on the method of peaceful settlement that should be applied, the Venezuelan Government intended to refer the issue to the UN Secretary General and suggested that Guyana should do the same. The letter stated:

. . . Because of the three-month lapse foreseen in Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, has passed without having been possible to agree upon one of the means of peaceful solution of controversies foreseen in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, it becomes necessary to apply the other provisions of the said paragraph.

The Government of Venezuela has arrived at the conviction that the international organ most appropriate to choose a means of settlement, is the Secretary General of the United Nations, who accepted this responsibility by note of April 4, 1966, signed by U Thant, and whose actuation was clearly conveyed by the parties in the said text of the Geneva Agreement.

In consequence, the Government of Venezuela has proposed to take the matter to the attention of the Secretary General and would see with pleasure that the Government of Guyana make on its part, a similar gesture. . .

On the 20 September, at a press conference to discuss the agenda of the UN General Assembly which was expected to convene on the following day, the Secretary General of the UN, Javier Perez de Cuellar, stated that he was ready to use all the resources at his disposal to settle the Guyana-Venezuela controversy. He said that the problem of the two countries provided an opportunity for both the Secretary General and the Security Council to assist the countries in overcoming their differences. He added that he was in contact with both Governments to consider the ways of preventing a conflict and noted "a genuine desire on both sides to find a just and peaceful solution".

The Venezuelan Foreign Minister on the 28 September, in an address to the UN General Assembly, characterised the 1899 Award as an "extraordinary farce from a so-called court arbitration without Venezuelan judges and lawyers". He maintained that Venezuelan claims were not based on territorial ambitions or the covetousness for the riches of others, but on the necessity of correcting a historical error perpetrated against it.

In an immediate response, Guyana's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Noel Sinclair, told reporters that the absence of Venezuelan judges or lawyers on the part came about because Venezuela decided to have its interests represented by US jurists since it was confident that those jurists would represent Venezuela's interests well. Sinclair said that he would reply with a Note to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister to correct the latter's misrepresentations.

Sinclair himself on the 5 October addressed the General Assembly on behalf of Guyana and rebutted the Venezuelan Foreign Minister's allegations concerning the border issue. He accused Zambrano of giving an account "full of lies" to the General Assembly. He added:

It is untrue that Venezuela has never used aggression outside its border. Venezuela forcefully took over the Guyanese side of Ankoko Island soon after the Geneva Agreement was signed in 1966. . . Guyana does not judge the peaceful intentions of Venezuela by what it says. The Venezuela that we know is the one which, with its armed forces, repeatedly violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana.
Venezuela has repeatedly used economic pressure to prevent companies and banks from dealing with Guyana.

In relation to the Arbitral Award of 1899, Sinclair stated:

Venezuela agreed freely to the 1899 Arbitration, promised to follow what was decided, and then signed the decision when the result was known. This was the border accepted by Venezuela for over half a century, until reaffirming its claim in the 1960s. It takes little imagination to realise why Venezuela does not want the dispute to be arbitrated. . .

Guyana rejects any imputation that it does not want to negotiate. Guyana followed the Geneva accord as closely as Venezuela when it suggested that the two countries (Guyana and Venezuela) submit the dispute to arbitration, instead of having direct negotiation.

On the 30 September, President Burnham of Guyana began a six-day visit to Brazil where he explained the position of his Government on the border issue to Brazilian officials. While in Rio de Janeiro, he denounced Venezuela as "expansionist" and announced that Guyana would purchase military equipment from Brazil. He also pointed out that while Guyana had no military agreements with Britain, "if there is to be an armed confrontation . . . anyone who is prepared to help us . . . we would accept". However, he hoped for a peaceful solution to the controversy.

On the 5 October, the last day of his visit, Burnham, in commenting on Venezuela's application made the week before to join the Non-Aligned Movement, insisted that Venezuela's application for full membership should be opposed. He explained that Venezuela's action in voting in the UN General Assembly in 1981 against the resolution on the non-interference of countries in the internal affairs of other countries should cause its application to be rejected. Burnham noted that Venezuela was the only Third World country that voted against the non-interference resolution.

In a reply on the 8 October to Zambrano's letter of the 19 September, the acting Foreign Minister of Guyana, Dr. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, noted that the currently applicable provisions of Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement provided that the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela should refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agreed, or failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary General of the UN.

The letter stated that while Guyana held the highest respect for the UN Secretary General, it would however be concerned to invite the Secretary General to assume the role envisaged for him at the proper stage "so as to ensure that he is unembarrassed by any reasonable doubt as to whether he is competent to act under the Geneva Agreement".

The UN Secretary General, the letter continued, would be competent to act " in circumstances in which the two Governments have failed to agree on an appropriate international organ under the first alternative, an event which has not yet occurred". It was pointed out further that the two Governments had not yet embarked on any steps to reach agreement on an international organ as contemplated in the first alternative. For these reasons Guyana was of the view that the proposal of Venezuela at this stage was "premature and inadmissible".

The letter concluded that Guyana was ready to endeavour to reach agreement with Venezuela on an international organ, as stipulated by the Geneva Agreement and, as such, was suggesting that an appropriate organ would be the UN General Assembly.

The Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned countries met in New York on the 9 October to discuss a number of matters including that of Venezuela's application to become a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement. At that meeting, Guyana, through Foreign Minister Jackson, expressed its objection to the application and explained that it non-support arose from some of the fundamental principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. Jackson listed some of these principles to which Guyana was attaching such importance as: (1) the use or threat of force for the achievement of political objectives; (2) non-interference in the internal affairs of states; (3) the sanctity of treaties; (4) territorial integrity; (5) the inviolability or legally established frontiers; and (6) the right of all states, especially developing ones, to secure their economic and social development.

Jackson also drew the meeting's attention to Venezuela's claim to 70 percent of Guyana's territory and the accompanying aggression through its occupation of Guyana's half of Ankoko Island in 1966; the Leoni Decree of 1968 which purported to annex waters of the coast of Essequibo; and the opposition to the building and World Bank financing of the Mazaruni Hydro-Project. He pointed out that such actions were inconsistent with the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and the efforts initiated from the beginning to create conditions which would promote rather than hinder the economic development of member nations.

Attention was also drawn to the fact that Venezuela was the only Third World country which in 1981 in the UN General Assembly voted against the Declaration which opposed the intervention and interference in the affairs of states. The Foreign Minister explained:

This action by Venezuela caused deep concern in Guyana and must have disappointed many members of this Movement. It was surely a matter of (great) significance to each one of us that Venezuela has chosen in the public forum of the General Assembly to stand aside from what was a clear and specific instruction from her head since they recognised the real threat and danger to small countries.

He added that Venezuela's reservation of some of the provisions of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea was possibly based on its maritime ambitions to the waters of the Essequibo area of Guyana. He concluded:

We desire nothing but peace and friendship with Venezuela but in seeking to achieve these ends, the need to be consistent with the principles of the Movement and to promote the security and the development of our country must ever be present. . .

I repeat . . . that Guyana remains willing to reach an accommodation with Venezuela on outstanding matters. However, . . . it would be difficult for us to set aside our reservations at this stage though we feel confident that with goodwill on all sides, this can in time be achieved.

Venezuela's application which was considered in detail by the Foreign Ministers was eventually referred to the Non-Aligned Summit to be held in New Delhi during March 1983, for a final decision to be made.

At the end of the meeting, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister accused Guyana of trying to blackmail his country by setting conditions for Venezuela's acceptance as a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Guyana later rejected this accusation.

Two days later, on the 11 October, in an address to the UN General Assembly, Jackson stated that the Venezuelan claim to the western Essequibo was an unjustified attempt to quench a thirst for land and mineral resources. In an extensive speech in which he dedicated a great part on the history of the border controversy, he refuted arguments presented earlier to the General Assembly by his Venezuelan counterpart. He said that Zambrano's presentation contained exaggerated distortions while at the same time being biased and selective in outlining the history of the issue. Jackson also proposed three alternatives, the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, any of which could choose the means of peaceful solution of the issue. However, he added, Guyana was choosing the General Assembly.

In Caracas, the Venezuelan National Advisory Commission on the Essequibo met on the 12 October to consider the latest development related to the border issue. The meeting also discussed the country's failure to gain full membership of the Non-Aligned Movement. The view was expressed that failure to obtain full membership of the Movement during the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement was a humiliating defeat spearheaded by Guyana.

On the following day, Jose Vincente Rangel of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), one of the candidates for the 1983 Presidential elections, contended that Venezuela was "isolated and without allies". He was quoted by IPS as saying that Colombia and Brazil "are not with us" and that English-speaking Caribbean countries were backing Guyana.

On the 15 October 1982, Zambrano wrote to Jackson, thus:

. . . I have the honour of addressing Your Excellency on the occasion of referring to your Note of October 8, 1982, as well as the propositions you have formulated in your speech of October 11, 1982 at the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation of which we did not have any knowledge through the ordinary diplomatic channel. With this Note the Government of Venezuela reiterates its aspiration of maintaining the communication between the parties, for the treatment of this matter, at the level of bilateral relations.

As manifested to Your Excellency in my Note dated September 19, 1982, the Government of Venezuela has arrived at the conviction that, for the fulfilment of what is foreseen in Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, the most appropriate organ is the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation.

The Government of Venezuela has taken note of the position of the Government of Guyana in that which is expressed in your communication of October 8, 1982, as well as in the proposition contained in your speech before the General Assembly.

Your Excellency has proposed three alternatives for the selection of an appropriate international organ which will choose one of the means of peaceful solution of controversies, as foreseen in Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, and which would be, according to your proposition, the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly or the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation.

After having analysed carefully these alternatives, the Government of Venezuela reiterates its conviction that what is most practical and appropriate is to entrust the choice of the means directly to the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation.

As it is evident that agreement between the parties for the selection of an international organ for the fulfilment of the function foreseen in Article IV (2) does not exist, it is obvious that the same remains entrusted to the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation...

In a statement made in New York on the 20 October, Guyana's Foreign Minister called on the US Government to end its stance of neutrality on the border issue. He said that there was no reason for the US to be neutral since there were clear-cut treaties that brought a solution to the border question, and, as such, the US had no alternative but to support the Guyana position. However, a US State Department spokesman told the Foreign Press Corps that the US Government would take an "even-handed" approach to the issue and would not involve itself heavily in seeking a peaceful solution to the problem.

Meanwhile, at the UN General Assembly, a number of Caribbean countries raised the border issue in their presentations and expressed open support for Guyana, while at the same time, calling for a peaceful solution to the issue. These countries included The Bahamas which was represented by its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paul Adderly, and Grenada which was represented by its Foreign Minister, Unison Whitman. Strangely, the Saint Lucia Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Compton, refrained from expressing support for Guyana, and while speaking of the "competing claims" of Guyana and Venezuela, urged that the two countries should continue on a course of conciliation.

Commenting on Guyana's objection to Venezuela's application to be a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Jackson on the 27 October pointed out that before Guyana could give favourable consideration to the application, Venezuela should make a general statement renouncing the use of force for the achievement of political objectives, its support of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, the sanctity of treaties, territorial integrity, the inviolability of legally established frontiers and the rights of all states, especially developing states, to pursue in an unimpeded and unencumbered manner, their economic and social development.

The meeting of CARICOM Heads of Governments held on the 16-18 November in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, discussed the Guyana-Venezuela border issue as part of its agenda, and at the end of the meeting, a communique declared support for the territorial integrity of Guyana. It stated further:

. . . The conference discussed developments in the relations between Guyana and Venezuela in the light of the controversy which had arisen as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the 1899 Arbitral Award, on the basis of which the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela was settled, was null and void.

Recalling its concern for the sanctity of treaties and for defined and demarcated boundaries, the conference noted the grave effect that this controversy is having on the relations between CARICOM states and Venezuela and took note of the unqualified undertaking given by the Venezuelan Government to eschew the use of force as a means of settling the controversy.

The conference also called upon Venezuela to desist from further action likely to affect the economic development of Guyana.

The conference urged Guyana and Venezuela to continue the pursuit of a peaceful settlement of the controversy in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Agreement of 1966 so as to arrive at a final decision as promptly as possible...

At the very period of the CARICOM Summit, the Venezuelan Government launched a diplomatic offensive in a number of member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement in its bid to be admitted as a full member of the organisation.

In an interesting development during December, it was announced by the Guyana Government that Venezuela might purchase Guyana's bauxite which was under great strain to find viable markets. Since that announcement, there was a noted halt on attacks by Guyana Government spokesmen on Venezuela concerning the border issue. Of significance was the fact that President Burnham's New Year speech to the Guyanese nation on the 1 January 1983 mentioned absolutely nothing of the issue.

On the 18 January 1983, the Coordinating Bureau of the Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement met in Managua, Nicaragua. There the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua urged both Guyana and Venezuela to settle the border issue by peaceful means. The final communique of the meeting also called on both countries to reach a settlement in keeping with the 1966 Geneva Agreement.

At another meeting of the Bureau in New York on the 15 February 1983, Venezuela decided to defer its application for full membership for the time being as Guyana had not indicated its willingness to withdraw its opposition to it. Subsequently, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister wrote a letter to the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the UN -- the Chairman of the Bureau -- conveying Venezuela's decision to request suspension of consideration of its membership application. The letter accused Guyana of exercising "a sort of veto" to keep out Venezuela from the Non-Aligned Movement. It also claimed that the Movement never expressed support for Guyana's position on the border issue.

The Guyana Foreign Ministry on the 26 February 1983 rejected the "several false and scurrilous accusations' against Guyana contained in the letter, and stated that these were part and parcel of the ill-conceived propaganda techniques of the Venezuelan Government. Venezuela's claim that Guyana received no support from the Movement was dismissed as "arrant nonsense".

Commenting on Venezuela's withdrawal of its application, President Burnham in his address on the 23 February 1983 to mark the 13th anniversary of Guyana's attainment of republican status, pointed out that Guyana had no veto in the Non-Aligned Movement, as Venezuela wanted others to believe. Explaining the position, he declared:

... We merely tried to have Venezuela declare her adherence to certain principles of the Movement, namely, non-use of force in the furtherance or support of territorial claims, the employment of peaceful means in settling disputes and abjuring economic aggression and, therefore, the withdrawal of the objection to our Upper Mazaruni complex lodged with the President of the World Bank. . . The Venezuelan Government must know why the application was really suspended. The reason given publicly is obviously spurious. . .

On the 9 March, President Burnham, in addressing the plenary session, noted that the Movement had spoken out on the matter of the Venezuelan claim and that its members had called for a just and peaceful settlement of the controversy, in accordance with the principles dear to the people of Guyana -- principles such as the non-use of or the threat of force. He added:

I wish to express my personal appreciation . . . for the principled position taken by this Movement on this matter which is of such crucial importance to my country and which has significant regional and hemispheric implications. . .

Let me avail myself to this opportunity to say to this Movement that Guyana has no other desire than that of friendly relations with Venezuela. But those relations must be on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect.

I reiterate here today what I said to President Luis Herrera Campins in Caracas on April 3, 1981 despite all that has happened, Guyana remains ready and willing to have bilateral discussions with Venezuela on the improvement of our relations. . .

In the final communique released on the 12 March at the end of the six-day conference, the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement referred to "the claim which Venezuela is advancing to more than two-thirds of the territory of Guyana". The communique called for a peaceful settlement and insisted that it should be based on those principles "relating to the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in the settling of disputes, and respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity." It also stated that the matter should be settled "in strict compliance with the Geneva Agreement of 1966".

On the 27 March 1983, the president of the Foreign Relations Commission in Venezuela, Jose Rodriguez, stated that he did not envisage a solution to the border issue within the next two years. He also claimed that there was not any proper coordination between his Commission and the Border Commission which was made up of representatives of a large section of the Venezuelan society.

On the 28 March 1983, the Guyana Government stated that it would be referring the matter to the Secretary General of the UN who would decide on the means of settlement. The statement declared that Guyana "has every confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Secretary General of the UN and will cooperate full with him in the execution of his task as envisaged in the Geneva Agreement".

The statement which was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the decision was taken because the Guyana Government was of the view that Venezuela never intended in good faith to endeavour to reach agreement on the choice of the means of a solution. The statement further explained that following the lapse of the Protocol of Port of Spain in June 1982, the countries had three months to choose the means of settlement of the issue. However, this proved impossible since Venezuela proposed negotiation while Guyana opted for a judicial settlement. The second stage required both Governments to agree on an appropriate international organ to assist in the solution. Guyana proposed three alternatives -- the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council.

The statement continued:

Venezuela, for her part, sought to bypass this second stage. On September 19, 1982, Foreign Minister Zambrano stated his Government's preference for the immediate involvement of the Secretary General of the UN, and on October 15, 1982 she repeated her preference after a summary dismissal of the proposals which Guyana made at the United Nations on October 11, 1982.

At the same time the statement was issued, Foreign Minister Jackson dispatched a letter to his Venezuelan counterpart in which he drew attention to the Venezuelan action of bypassing the second stage as a "breach of the Geneva Agreement". It explained:

. . . On the basis that the Government of the Republic of Venezuela is unwilling seriously to endeavour to reach agreement on any appropriate international organ whatsoever to choose the means of settlement, the Government of Guyana is ineluctably constrained to the view that, in the circumstances, the Government of the Republic of Venezuela never intended in good faith to endeavour to reach agreement with the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on an international organ before the matter is referred to the Secretary General as required by Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, and has utterly failed to discharge its solemn treaty obligations in these respects.

Towards the end of April 1983, Venezuela's Foreign Minister Zambrano visited Moscow for official discussions with the Soviet Government. At the end of his five-day visit on the 29 April, he asked the USSR for permission to seek information in its archives about the 1899 Award.

Support for Guyana received a further boost when the CARICOM Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs, which met in Antigua on the 2-3 June, released the following communique:

The Standing Committee reviewed recent developments in the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela which had arisen as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between Guyana and Venezuela was null and void. The Foreign Ministers noted that on the expiry of the Protocol of Port of Spain on June 18, 1982, the provisions of the Geneva Agreement of 1966 had once more come into force.

The Committee noted that the two Governments had referred the choice of a means of settlement of the controversy to the Secretary General of the United Nations in accordance with Article IV (2) of that Agreement. The Foreign Ministers expressed their satisfaction that the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela have followed the procedures laid down in the Geneva Agreement.

In reiterating its well-known stand on the sanctity of treaties and on the need for respect for well-defined and demarcated boundaries, the Standing Committee urged the parties to act fully in accordance with the Geneva Agreement in order to achieve a peaceful and just settlement of the controversy on the basis of internationally recognised principles, especially those relating to the inadmissibility of the threat or the use of force in the settlement of disputes and respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Recognising the cardinal importance to Guyana of the full and free utilisation of all her resources, the Standing Committee called on Venezuela to desist from further action or threats of action likely to adversely affect the economic development of Guyana.

At a Latin American and Caribbean conference on the planning of Broadcasting Satellite Service which began in Geneva on the 13 June 1983, Venezuela once again showed that it had not relaxed its efforts to take control of the western Essequibo.

The conference required member countries to submit their latitude and longitude coordinates for broadcasting and satellite services. Such coordinates must be placed in the national territories of the countries concerned except by agreement between member countries.

Venezuela, without consulting Guyana, submitted coordinates, two of which were placed well within Guyanese territory. One point was placed at Aurora on the Essequibo coast while the other was placed in the south of Guyana close to the Brazilian border.

As a consequence of this action by Venezuela, Guyana decided to augment the technical delegation to the conference by sending Dr. B. Scotland, the Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Geneva conference. At the conference, the Guyana delegation arranged to meet with the Venezuelan representatives in an effort to have this matter of the coordinates quickly and quietly settled. Guyana also required the withdrawal of the coordinates from its territory.

However, Venezuela refused to withdraw the coordinates in question and insisted that in placing coordinates in what Venezuela termed the "area under claim", it was merely planning for the future, and that its action had no implications for the question of sovereignty. The Geneva Agreement, the Venezuelan delegation claimed, had not been violated by such action.

In reply the Guyanese delegation explained that the existence of the Venezuelan claim to the western Essequibo did not confer on Venezuela the rights to sovereignty over the Essequibo and certainly did not allow it to act as though Essequibo was part of its national territory.

After several inconclusive meetings, the Guyanese representatives considered it necessary to formally draw to the attention of the conference authorities the violation of Guyana's sovereignty involved in the placing of the two Venezuelan coordinates. Accordingly, the Chairman of the International Frequency Registration Board was notified by letter that the placing of the two coordinates in question was not in accordance with radio regulations; that they had not been placed by agreement with Guyana; and that Guyana objected to the placing of these two coordinates on its territory.

It was only after this step was taken that, at the fourth informal bilateral meeting between the Guyanese and Venezuelan delegations, the Venezuelan representatives agreed to withdraw the offending coordinates unconditionally. They subsequently submitted modified coordinates which the Guyana representatives examined and with which they had no complaint since their positioning did not place them on any part of Guyanese territory.

PPP Leader Dr. Cheddi Jagan visited Venezuela during May 1983 to participate in the bi-centenary celebrations of Simon Bolivar. There he also met with journalists to discuss the situation relating to the border issue . Subsequently, the Latin American Regional Reports of the 23 July 1983 reported on this meeting:

Facing the Venezuelan press, he (Dr. Jagan) left no doubts about his belief that the region belongs to Guyana "on legal grounds, as well as because it has been part of Guyana for so many years", but he blamed the recent tension on President Burnham's mishandling of the matter. "The problem," he told reporters, "should have been taken to the UN a long time ago."

The Essequibo question arose out of two factors he told us. One was Venezuela's internal politics, where some groups have tried to use the border conflict for political gain. The second factor, he aid, could have been possible US pressures to force President Burnham to retreat towards the right of the political spectrum. "Now the pressure has dropped. Why? Because Burnham has been retreating. The border question, for US imperialism, is to be kept in cold storage, to be used from time to time." The PPP leader also argued that President Burnham had made use of the conflict over the Essequibo as an exercise to build up an army for repressive purposes and to put pressures on workers, as in 1979 when he faced the trade unions' demand for a G$14 minimum wage with the question: "Do you want $14 or do you want the Essequibo?"

Guyanese people have no quarrel with Venezuela. "We are neighbours and should not allow chauvinistic elements to divide us," said Jagan. "We have a common enemy, imperialism, and we must cooperate." He emphasised the PPP's support for Argentina over the Malvinas conflict, as opposed to President Burnham's support for Britain. The South Atlantic conflict was also a turning point in Venezuela's foreign policy and Cheddi Jagan could envisage a return to better relations with Caracas if the PPP was in power.

During the May-June period, speculation was widespread in Venezuela that there would be a meeting between the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela. However, on the 22 June, the Venezuelan acting Foreign Minister, Dr. Osvaldo Paez Pumar, stated that "no meeting is planned between Presidents Burnham of Guyana and Luis Herrera Campins of Venezuela on the Essequibo territorial dispute". He added, "What is being planned is that we follow the procedures of the Geneva Agreement, particularly the choice of a means of solution by the Secretary General of the United Nations."

The CARICOM Heads of Government meeting held in Trinidad and Tobago during 4-9 July 1983 expressed support for Guyana and called for a peaceful solution of the controversy. At the end of the meeting President Burnham told reporters that "...Venezuela has been violating our air space and our land area. Recently there was a very provocative. Venezuela purchased three patrol boats and named one of them 'Essequibo'". He added that a Venezuelan military helicopter landed at a Guyana outpost, and that only recently at the international communications conference in Geneva had claimed the air waves over the Essequibo region. "And there seems to be a school of thought judicially that anyone born inside the Essequibo doesn't have to apply for Venezuelan citizenship, but is a Venezuelan citizen," Burnham claimed. He said that all that taken together is "rather disgusting".

The Guyana Parliament on the 20 July nominated Ranji Chandisingh of the PNC to replace Hubert Jack on the Parliamentary Committee for the Territorial Integrity of Guyana. Jack had earlier resigned from Parliament to take up a position as Guyana's Ambassador to Brazil.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Special Political Affairs, Diego Cordovez, an Ecuadorian, was appointed to advise the UN Secretary General of the best means of peaceful settlement of the border issue. He already functioned as head of a Special Committee of Experts established by UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar. On the 22 August 1983, as a representative of the UN Secretary General, he held talks in Caracas with the Venezuela Foreign Minister on matters relating to the border issue. On the following day he met with President Campins. After these meetings he stated that the UN Secretary General would intervene in the controversy "once an exhaustive study of the situation is concluded". He added that his visit was intended to gather information and hear opinions and that he had a preference for "silent diplomacy". He pointed out: "For the moment, we are in the study, conversation and information stage."

Accompanying Cordovez on his visit to Venezuela were Raymond Sommereyns, senior political affairs officer, Alexander Martinovic, special assistant to the Under-Secretary General and Regina Monticone, personal assistant to the Under-Secretary General.

Cordovez and his team arrived in Guyana on the 24 August 1983 and in the afternoon met with Foreign Minister Jackson. The discussions continued on the following morning when the UN delegation met also with Justice Minister and Attorney General, Mohamed Shahabudeen and the Parliamentary Committee for the Territorial Integrity of Guyana. Cordovez also paid a courtesy visit to President Burnham.

The UN team returned to New York on the 26 August, and in a statement issued on the same day, the Secretary General thanked the Governments of Venezuela and Guyana for the assistance they rendered to Cordovez. The statement added that Cordovez conveyed the assurances of the two Governments that they were "determined to exert the utmost efforts to settle the controversy in an entirely peaceful and amicable manner". Accordingly, the two countries "have reaffirmed their readiness to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in the discharge of his responsibility under the Geneva Agreement".

The statement further noted that Guyana and Venezuela undertook to adopt all the measures that may be necessary in order to foster and maintain the most favourable climate for the effective application of the Geneva Agreement. Consequently, the two countries "will refrain from any action whatsoever which might make more difficult or impede the peaceful settlement of the controversy".

An interesting incident occurred on the 14 November 1983 when six Venezuelan fishing trawlers were arrested for fishing illegally in Guyana's economic zone in the Atlantic off the Essequibo coast. The trawlers were arrested by a Guyana Defence Force marine patrol and brought to Georgetown where they were impounded. The captains were later charged by the Police under the Maritime Boundaries Act. On the 22 November, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that one of the vessels along with its captain was released as a goodwill gesture to Venezuela. When the case came up for trial in Georgetown, the other five captains through their counsel, Jainarine Singh, Snr., pleaded not guilty. However, later in the trial they changed their plea to guilty and were fined G$15,000 each. Upon payment of the fines, the boats were released and they later returned to Venezuela.

The Commonwealth leaders met for their one-week summit in New Delhi, India, and at the end of the conference on the 29 November 1983, they released a communique which reaffirmed the position of support for Guyana on the border issue. The leaders stressed the importance of the sanctity of treaties and respect for defined and demarcated boundaries. And, in mentioning the fact that the territorial controversy was referred by the two countries to the UN Secretary General, the communique declared that "the leaders welcomed the unqualified undertaking given by the Venezuelan Government to eschew the use of force as a means of settling the controversy".

At the Venezuelan elections held on the 4 December 1983, Jaime Lusinchi of Accion Democratica (AD) was elected as the new President (to take office in February 1984). In a major statement on his foreign policy proposals on the 13 December, Lusinchi expressed the confidence that the UN Secretary General would determine a peaceful solution to the border issue during 1984.

On the 10 January 1984, both Venezuelan Foreign Minister Zambrano and his successor Isidoro Morales Paul of the incoming Lusinchi administration, held discussions with UN Secretary General, Perez de Cuellar, and informed him that the new administration would not change Venezuela's stance on the issue. Zambrano later explained that he and Morales informed the Secretary General that the Lusinchi administration would maintain Venezuela's unconditional claim to the western Essequibo, and that they communicated Venezuela's interest in reaching a solution. Morales said that the new AD administration would not back down on the issue since it was seen as one of vital interest to Venezuela.

The inauguration of President Lusinchi subsequently took place on the 2 February 1984. Guyana was represented at the ceremony by its Prime Minister, Dr. Ptolomy Reid.

In an unrelated incident on the 21 February, during a robbery incident at this home in Georgetown, the Venezuelan Ambassador to Guyana and his wife received gun-shot injuries. The Ambassador needed urgent surgery to his eye and he was immediately rushed back to Caracas for hospitalisation during which period his injured eye was removed. He returned to Guyana in early April to resume his duties.

It was during February 1984 that the Guyana Government carried out another nation-wide campaign for the sale of Defence Bonds. The campaign marked the second anniversary of the first sale of these bonds. Heavy advertisement was carried out on the radio and the state-controlled media. An advertisement on the radio called on Guyanese to "stop the land grabbers" by purchasing Defence Bonds. This advertisement was really in poor taste since it was clear that the Governments of both countries were now on more friendly terms and particularly since the border question was now engaging the attention of the UN Secretary General to whom it was referred to find a means for its settlement.

In a statement published in the Venezuelan daily, El Nacional, on the 29 March 1984, the new Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Isidoro Morales Paul, announced that his country was seeking a negotiated settlement with Guyana. He expressed the view that negotiations with Guyana should take place under United Nations auspices.

A conflict of opinions arose during mid-May among leading officials of the Venezuelan Government. It originated on the 16 May 1984 when the Documentation Chief of the Supreme Electoral Council of Venezuela, Humberto Maio Negrete, declared that Essequibo residents would receive documents allowing them to vote in Venezuela's municipal elections planned for the 27 May. He stated that the Venezuelan Government would send mobile units across the border with military guards to register to register the residents of western Essequibo under an old plan which was never implemented. Maio also pointed out that Venezuela had the legal obligation to identify its citizens and that if it was claiming the Essequibo region as its territory, it followed that the Government should go in and register the residents there.

However, two days later, the Interior Minister, Octavio Lepage, and the Foreign Minister, Isidoro Morales Paul, denied that there was any such plan for registration and insisted that Maio had no authority to announce one. Morales explained that when an Essequibo resident requested Venezuelan citizenship it was usually granted, but no Venezuelan official had ever proposed a general documentation campaign in the territory.

On the 4 June 1984, Guyana's Foreign Minister, Jackson, announced that the UN Secretary General would send a representative to visit both Guyana and Venezuela "in another month or so" in his effort to find a peaceful settlement to the border controversy. Jackson noted that the new Venezuelan Government was saying publicly that it would like to develop relations of friendship with Guyana. Guyana, he pointed out, was "taking these asseverations of friendship" seriously. He added that the Guyana Ambassador to Caracas, Rudolph Collins, recently held discussions with Morales on "the way forward".

At the UN on the 5 October 1984, Jackson, in his speech to the General Assembly stated that Venezuela since early 1984 was showing signs that it wanted to develop friendly relations with Guyana. He noted, however, that the two countries were still "some considerable way" from reaching an agreement on the border question. Earlier Jackson and Morales met in New York and reported that their talks were "frank and constructive".

Nevertheless, Venezuela was still concerned over the support Guyana was receiving at the international level. This was reflected when the Cuban Foreign Minister, Isidoro Malmierca, during the last week of November, visited Guyana for discussions with the Guyana Government. At the end of the visit, a joint Guyanese-Cuban communique reaffirmed Cuba's total support for Guyana's "right to have its territorial integrity respected". However, according to a report in the Catholic Standard, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Church of Guyana, on the 27 January 1985, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry denounced the Cuban support as a form "of meddling in an issue which exclusively concerned Venezuela and Guyana". Cuba, according to the paper, "responded in strong terms to the Venezuelan criticism".

The Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Isidoro Morales Paul, and a team of officials visited Guyana during the period 6-9 February 1985 for discussions with officials of the Guyana Government. On the 6 February, at a plenary session of talks on bilateral cooperation between the two states at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Morales declared that his country wanted to establish "stable, serious and fruitful" relations with Guyana based on "peace and development". In welcoming Morales, Foreign Minister Jackson reiterated Guyana's desire to have friendly relations with Venezuela. Both Ministers in their opening speeches exchanged views on the territorial issue.

On the following day, Guyanese and Venezuelan officials met in three groups in Georgetown to discuss possibilities of increased trade and for bilateral cooperation in public health, education and fishing. These talks continued into the next day. During the discussions, the Venezuelan officials detailed what assistance in the form of equipment, training opportunities and technological advice they could offer Guyana in dredging of its rivers. Guyana, on the other hand, indicated its willingness to discuss this offer after the completion of a comprehensive study of its dredging needs for the next few years.

The sale of Guyana's bauxite to Venezuela was also discussed.

On the 8 February, Morales held a press conference in Georgetown to discuss the outcome of his visit to Guyana. He announced that Venezuela would purchase 250,000 tons of bauxite during 1985 and that both countries had agreed to undertake a detailed study of the transport and technical needs of Guyana's dredging operations to ascertain whether certain rivers could be dredged to allow for passage of larger draft ships. He also announced that Guyanese would receive scholarships from the Venezuelan Government to study quality control and other related subjects in Venezuelan universities.

Announcing that his visit was "highly successful", Morales called it "the starting point of a new stage in relations" between Guyana and Venezuela. He pointed out that the two countries decided to begin an immediate programme on areas of mutual interest in the health sector. This would include the fight against malaria and treatment of cancer, with Venezuela agreeing to make available post-graduate courses in health sciences for qualified Guyanese. He added that the 1974 cultural exchange agreement between the two countries would be re-activated to allow for the exchange of painters, sculptors and others in the artistic field. This would also be coupled with post-graduate and other diploma programmes of study at institutions in Venezuela.

Morales also mentioned that after careful examination of the priority issues in agriculture, both sides decided that the agro-business area was vital and agreed on an exchange of information and staff involving the pertinent agencies in the two countries. It was also agreed that technical and scientific studies in marine fishing would commence shortly and would involve the sharing of information and documentation.

At a reception for Morales and the Venezuelan delegation on the 8 February, Guyana's Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson said that the dialogue between the two countries showed "more clearly pathways which we (Guyana and Venezuela) might travel together". He described Morales" visit as "a new beginning" in relations between the two countries and added that discussions over the past few days "illuminated several possibilities for cooperation". He urged: "Let us therefore explore to the full a new horizon of peace and friendship, one which can be opened through an enlightened approach."

Jackson described the territorial controversy as "the fundamental problem" between the two countries. He stressed, however, that although relations between the two countries were in the past "cyclical in nature" and subjected to "ups and downs", future relations should not respond to "those traditional rhythms". It was Guyana's desire "to live in peace with you and to engage in meaningful cooperation for mutual benefit", Jackson told the Venezuelan delegation. He also pointed out that the two countries had undertaken to "do everything possible to facilitate the UN Secretary General's efforts".

The Guyanese Foreign Minister noted that the two countries were cooperating in groupings such as SELA and the Group of 77 and expressed appreciation for Venezuela's efforts within the Contadora group, which was at that time trying to find a peaceful solution to the conflicts in Central America. Encouraging Venezuela to maintain these efforts, Jackson contended that if the Contadora process "ends in a stalemate or in a failure, a political vacuum would be created", thus opening the door "for military adventurism, a development which all peace loving countries and peoples would wish to avoid".

In reply, Morales expressed his President's wish to see "a sharing of experiences" between Guyana and Venezuela so that the two countries might become "supporting elements of programmes of economic and social development for both countries".

Morales described the territorial controversy as "a situation inherited from the colonial past". Venezuela, he said, wanted a solution that would be "amicable, reasonable and acceptable to both parties". He declared:

We do not want solutions that history will view as being the result of injustice, action or influence of those who are more powerful, or conspiracies of interests or imperialist eras. The solution must fulfil one single condition: bringing together our peoples.

On the regional ties of the two countries, Morales added that the historical period of the 1980s "highlights ever more clearly the growing inter-dependency of peoples and nations. . . In the present state of the world economy and within the framework of the difficulties facing Latin America and the Caribbean, regional cooperation and particularly economic and technical cooperation between our countries are matters of unquestionable viability".

In a joint statement on the 9 February 1985, both Foreign Ministers noted that the territorial controversy had been examined against "the background of the new spirit of friendship and cooperation" characterising bilateral relations between Guyana and Venezuela. Both Ministers expressed the desire for an early visit to Caracas and Georgetown by Diego Cordovez, the UN Secretary General's special envoy.

Morales explained that there could be "no magic or instant solution to the controversy which is a complex issue". However, he reiterated Venezuela's "political will" to live in peace and cooperation with Guyana.

The Guyana Foreign Minister used the occasion to announce that the had accepted an invitation from Morales to pay an official visit to Caracas at a "mutually convenient time".

The visit of the Venezuelan delegation to Guyana was seen as one which could open a new and favourable era in relations between the two neighbours. Writing in a column, "Politics Today", in the Venezuelan daily, El Nacional, on the 17 February 1985, Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, a member of the Venezuelan delegation, said that the visit could open perspectives which, if handled correctly and without false expectations, could be favourable to stable co-existence on more solid bases than currently existed. He observed: "The only certain thing between Guyana and Venezuela is that we shall be neighbours eternally. It is better to live straight, face to face with each other than to turn our backs indefinitely on each other apprehensively."

Alvarez contended that the Guyana Government seemed to have taken special pains to make the stay of the Venezuelan delegation pleasant and pointed out that "the attitude, the way in which things developed, the undoubtable frankness in the talks held, ratify this conviction".

Diego Cordovez, the special envoy of the UN Secretary General, arrived in Guyana on the 18 March 1985 and immediately opened discussions with Jackson on the border question. Cordovez was accompanied by Raymond Sommereyns, a senior political officer in the UN, and two other officials. At the end of the visit on the 20 March, Cordovez stated that he was "extremely satisfied" with his discussions in Guyana. "I found here a determination to find a solution, a desire to improve relations with Venezuela," he said.

Guyana's desire and determination, he noted, were expressed by President Burnham with whom he held discussions, as well as by Foreign Minister Jackson and other senior Government officials with whom he met.

Cordovez believed that the UN Secretary General was now closer to arriving at a means of helping the two countries find a "definitive and durable solution" to their territorial issue "in the sense that we obviously know the problem much better now".

The UN envoy recalled that when he visited in August 1983 there was considerable tension between the two countries. "This is the reason why I, on behalf of the Secretary General, had requested both countries to undertake to improve those relations to create a better climate for the solution of the problem," he explained. Since then, he added, there were a change in Government in Venezuela, a visit to Guyana by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Morales (who was shifted from that position in March), and generally improved conditions between the two countries.

The Secretary General, Cordovez explained, was not eliminating any of the possible means of settlement and was not giving himself a time frame for recommending a means of settlement and would have to choose "when it will be the best time to start this very complicated process".

Cordovez left Guyana for Venezuela to hold similar talks with officials there.

According to the Caribbean Contact of May 1985, both Government were holding secret talks to bring about a quick settlement. Ricky Singh, writing in the column, "Guyana -- The Way Forward", stated:

To judge from press reports out of Caracas and Georgetown, Guyana seems to be on the verge of resolving its colonially-inherited border dispute with neighbouring Venezuela.

One Cana-Reuter report actually stated what the great majority of Guyanese have not yet been informed about: that the Burnham Government has been discussing as a possible solution, extending Venezuela's jurisdiction in the Atlantic ocean for Venezuela's renunciation of two-thirds of Guyana's territory in the Essequibo region.

This, incidentally, is a proposal originally raised with the Georgetown administration by ex-President Carlos Perez of Venezuela some years ago.

If the border dispute is resolved, in a manner acceptable to Guyana, it would be a tremendous political victory for Mr. Burnham, and would create very significant opportunities for the development of the sprawling Essequibo region with its largely untapped natural resources, including oil. . .