It seems that Barbados' example of using an arbitration procedure under
UNCLOS with regard to its dispute with Trinidad and Tobago has started a
trend in the Caribbean region. Guyana has done the same now with regard to
its dispute with Suriname, which, unlike the Barbados-Trinidad dispute
also has a land border component.

Below is the speech of Guyana's President on the matter.

Regards,
Francois Jackman





ADDRESS TO THE NATION BY

HIS EXCELLENCY BHARRAT JAGDEO

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

Wednesday 25, February 2004





Fellow Guyanese,



You are all familiar with our differences with neighbouring Suriname over
boundary issues. One of these – that relating to our offshore boundary
has been the subject of current controversy in a context which has a
bearing on our development prospects. Those prospects ultimately determine
Guyana’s capacity for raising living standards for all our people - but
especially for the poorest in our community. This is pointedly so since
Suriname has taken aggressive action to frustrate the exploration and
exploitation of our hydrocarbon resources. For one developing country to
do so to another is hard to understand; but it is worse than that, because
it is also a self-inflicted wound – Suriname’s development prospects are
blighted also. It is the poorest in both countries who are most damaged by
these policies and actions.



Mindful of this, the Government of Guyana has pursued every avenue of
discussion and negotiation with Suriname, bilaterally and in the Councils
of CARICOM, to resolve this matter and to allow offshore mineral
exploitation to take place on a basis beneficial to both countries. Few
things could be more urgently necessary; yet Suriname has steadfastly
refused to cooperate in these efforts. Let me remind you of some of these
recent efforts, at bilateral and regional levels, for the resolution of
the Guyana – Suriname maritime boundary issues.



-         As far back as the  State Visit of President Hoyte to Suriname
in 1989, President Shankar and President Hoyte agreed ‘that pending
settlement of the Border Question the representatives of the Agencies
responsible for Petroleum Development within the two countries, should
agree on modalities which would ensure that the opportunities available
within the said area can be jointly utilised by the two countries’



-         On 6 June 2000, Guyana and Suriname convened a Special
Ministerial meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.  It was agreed
that a Joint Technical Committee should meet immediately, and further
agreed to Joint Meetings of their respective National Border Commissions.
In the months that followed, a series of related bilateral meetings took
place with a view to resolving the dispute in light of Suriname’s actions
against the CGX vessels.  The Joint Technical Committee held a meeting in
Georgetown from June 13 to 14 2000.  There was also a Special Ministerial
Meeting in Paramaribo on 18 June 2000.  A Joint Meeting of the Border
Commission was held in Paramaribo on 17 January 2002.



-         In January 2002 I made a State Visit to Suriname. The Joint
Declaration issued at its conclusion by President Venetiaan and myself
records the decision “to request the Border Commissions to look at best
practices and modalities that could assist the governments in the taking
of a decision regarding an eventual joint exploration”.



-         On 31 May 2002, the Joint National Border Sub-Commission held
its first meeting in Georgetown, followed by further meetings in
Paramaribo from July 23 to 25 2002 and October 25 to 26 2002. But Suriname
frustrated all efforts at agreement.



-         There were also significant efforts at the regional level.  In
particular, at their XXI Heads of Government Conference in Canouan, St
Vincent and the Grenadines in July 2000, the Presidents and Prime
Ministers of CARICOM issued a ‘STATEMENT ON GUYANA AND SURINAME’.  In it
Caribbean leaders “affirmed the vital importance of settling this dispute
by peaceful means in accordance with the spirit of the Treaty of
Chaguaramas and the need to ensure that the benefits of existing resources
in the area redound to the benefit of their respective peoples.”  To this
end, the Heads of Government of CARICOM offered the good offices of the
Prime Minister of Jamaica.  The Presidents of Guyana and Suriname agreed
to meet in Jamaica within seven (7) days “in order to expedite a
resolution of outstanding differences which have recently arisen.”  They
also “agreed to determine a modality for exploiting the benefits of the
exploratory drilling activities to be undertaken in the disputed area”.



-         The meeting was held from 14 to 17 July 2000 in Montego Bay and
Kingston, Jamaica, but it failed to produce agreement between Guyana and
Suriname despite extensive discussions and strenuous efforts by CARICOM
through the Prime Minister of Jamaica who chaired the Meeting.  Suriname
consistently rejected constructive proposals for dispute resolution by the
Prime Minister of Jamaica, and further efforts on his part failed to
change this intransigent posture.



-    Despite Guyana’s and CARICOM’s genuine efforts to resolve the dispute
amicably, the flurry of diplomatic activity and bilateral meetings failed
to yield any results.  Suriname insisted on maritime delimitation based on
a line running 10° east of true north, though it offered no justification
whatsoever for its position. It rejected all suggestions to delimit the
maritime zone based on the principles of international law contained in
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Suriname even
rejected repeated offers to establish a Special Zone for Sustainable
Development in order to allow for joint exploration and exploitation
pending settlement of the maritime boundary.  In short, Suriname made
clear that it would not compromise, and that it was willing to use force
to prevent Guyana from exploring and exploiting the natural resources in
its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.



In part, the Government of Suriname has sought to link this matter with
its contentions in relation to the New River Triangle in the south of
Guyana.  In doing so, it has been prepared to sacrifice the economic
development of each country on the altar of a claim that we consider to be
misconceived. The people of Guyana cannot accept that sacrifice. It is
both wrong and sad; for, quite apart from Guyana’s long-standing rejection
of this claim, it has no relevance to the mutual benefits that can accrue
today to both countries from offshore mineral development - save a
potential for frustrating them.



In these circumstances, the Government of Guyana has a clear and pressing
duty to seek to resolve our maritime differences with Suriname by every
peaceful means. Fortunately, as the Government of Barbados has recently
demonstrated in its maritime dispute with Trinidad and Tobago, such means
are at hand in the form of procedures available under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea to which both Suriname and Guyana are
Parties. These procedures allow for disputes relating to maritime
boundaries between adjacent States which are Parties to the Treaty to be
submitted for binding resolution to an Arbitral Tribunal established under
the Treaty.



The Government of Guyana has had these procedures under advisement for
some time. On 22 December 2002, Foreign Minister Insanally indicated
publicly that while his Ministry was exploring every possible avenue of
diplomacy to resolve the problem with Suriname, “bringing the matter to an
international tribunal may be a last resort” if those efforts fail. Now,
having exhausted all other peaceful means of settling this dispute with
Suriname, and conscious of the urgency of doing so in the interest of the
people of both countries, Guyana has today invoked these procedures. It
has formally submitted to the Government of Suriname a Statement of Claim
invoking Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea in relation to its maritime boundary dispute with Suriname.



Annex VII of the Convention sets out the rules and procedures for the
establishment and functioning of an Arbitral Tribunal under the
Convention. Pursuant to those requirements the Government of Guyana last
night gave notice of its action under the Convention to the Government of
Suriname and to the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea.  It has done so similarly today to the Secretary General of the
United Nations.



As required by the Convention Guyana has designated its appointee to the
Arbitral Tribunal. I am pleased to announce that Professor Thomas Frank,
currently Professor Emeritus of the New York University School of Law, a
distinguished international law scholar and practitioner who has served as
a Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, is our appointed
member of the Tribunal.



Our legal team for these proceedings will be: Sir Shridath Ramphal, Mr
Paul Reichler of the Washington Law Firm of Foley Hoag and Dr Payam
Akhavan of Yale Law School. Legal and other support will be provided to
them by the Attorney General and other designated Guyana based personnel.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be Guyana’s Agent for the purposes of
the proceedings.



It is our hope that these procedures will not be long-drawn-out; but we
are all aware of the potential for protraction. Fortunately, the action we
have initiated provides an opportunity for provisional arrangements
appropriate to the circumstances. We will explore all these possibilities
so that the people of Guyana can obtain relief from the freeze on offshore
mineral development that the actions of the Government of Suriname have
occasioned.

We will also examine very carefully the relevance for Guyana of the action
taken by Barbados in its dispute with Trinidad and Tobago having regard
particularly to the implications for us to which Barbados has already
alluded.  I am pleased that yesterday we were able to announce the
conclusion with the Government of Barbados of an Exclusive Economic Zone
Cooperation Treaty.  This is a practical demonstration of the way CARICOM
countries can go. As the Barbados/Guyana Joint Statement said, the Treaty
provides a framework under international law for the two states to
regulate activities (in their overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones)
including resource extraction from the waters and seabed of the zone – and
to do so in a manner that does not affect the legitimate rights of third
states under international law.



Everyone can be assured that we will proceed with the arbitral process
with Suriname which we have initiated in the spirit of the United Nations
Convention and in keeping with the highest standards of international
amity – not as an adversarial process, but one designed to establish a
sound basis for economic development in the maritime regions of both
Suriname and Guyana. We hope the Government of Suriname will cooperate
with us in achieving this.



We are very mindful of our relationships with Suriname as fellow members
of CARICOM – relationships which it is not our intention to impair in any
way. Indeed, we reaffirm our commitment to Caribbean regional integration
and in particular to the implementation of the Rose Hall Declaration on
Regional Governance and Integrated Development to which we agreed last
July in Jamaica. Problems between Member States of CARICOM point to the
need for those more mature integration arrangements (including the
Caribbean Court of Justice) not to the weakening of the limited structure
we have so far developed.  We have informed the Secretary-General of
CARICOM of our action and of these sentiments, and through him all Member
States of the Community. We remain steadfast to the highest purposes and
commitments of CARICOM – a CARICOM that includes our brothers and sisters
in Suriname. I have indicated all this in a personal communication to the
President of Suriname.



Despite our differences on other matters, the political Parties of this
country have always been united in matters affecting Guyana’s territorial
integrity.  I look forward to us maintaining this tradition.  On Monday we
celebrated in unity the birth of our Republic; today let us go forward in
unity strong in our resolve to stand together in defence of our
territorial integrity under law – under the law of Guyana, under the law
of Nations.



To you, my fellow Guyanese, I appeal for your mature understanding of our
actions. We must settle this urgent matter of our maritime boundary with
Suriname with firmness but with dignity, so that both people can go
forward in friendship with enhanced prospects of development.



                                                          ~~~~~~