- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -

There is no agreement recognizing Suriname's sovereignty over the Corentyne River



Dear Editor,
I have read with dismay the article entitled ˜Diplomatic Belligerence' which appeared on page 12 of Kaieteur News on October 21, 2008. A second article in today's (October 23) issue continues in the same vein.
The writer began by imploring Guyanese to "not allow... love for Guyana to blind them to an objective assessment of the facts." I will not seek to assess the love for which country made the writer make the sweeping assertions that he made, but I must say that s/he did not adhere to his own advice.

For instance, s/he asserts that s/he knows of "no principle of international law" which supports the contention that there should be user rights or shared sovereignty over the use of the Corentyne River. But s/he did not say on what principle, law or agreement s/he bases Suriname's sovereignty over the river. Was it by default? What are the principles of international law or case law to support that contention? The writer makes the assertion that "clearly Suriname feels that the high water mark is its territory" and insinuates that this is consistent with international law which gives a country exclusive rights over its territory. While this is an absurdity in and of itself, what about what Guyana feels, if subjective views, according to the writer, hold sway in international law?

The writer alludes to a "historical agreement" which supposedly gave Suriname sovereignty over the river, but I do not know how the readers are to educate themselves about that "agreement" if it is not identified. I must therefore be forgiven if I assume that the writer was referring to the 1799 Governors' Agreement, whereby the Governors of Berbice and Suriname sought to declare the rights of the respective colonies. The 1799 Governors' agreement did not assign to Suriname's ownership of the river. The agreement stated that "none of the Islands situate in the River Corentyne shall be included in this provisional cession, but always be acknowledged to belong to the Government of the Colony of Surinam."

I am advised that there is a Latin phrase that contract and treaty lawyers often use: Expressio unias est exclusio alteris (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). That is, the Governors expressly stated that the islands are Suriname's and therefore excluded the river from their agreement. If the Governors had decided that the Corentyne River was Suriname's then ipso facto, there would have been reasonable grounds to argue that the islands would have also been Suriname's. They did not do so.
Clearly, therefore, the 1799 Governors' Agreement is of no support to the assertions made by the writer. I invite the writer to revert to me if the 1799 Agreement is not the "historical agreement" to which he refers. I know of no other agreement that is relevant to the matter at hand.

The writer states that there are principles which in the absence of an agreement would allow for the demarcation of river boundaries. I am advised that, in international law and practice, agreement precedes demarcation, not the reverse. However international law and practice aid negotiation, the preparation of agreements and indeed "understandings" pending formal agreement since the parties concerned are able to use the law and practice to guide them in their search for an "arrangement" that does not prejudice their legitimate rights. This has been the reason for Guyana invoking the jurisprudence of the cases with Venezuela and Brazil. There are other cases that support Guyana's position, but those two are geographically close. The jurisprudence is dispassionate, and they are invoked by Guyana because they indicate what are perhaps the very least that both sides would be given rights to if there could be mutual agreement (and that is absolutely necessary) to engage in some form of adjudicatory process to definitively delimit the boundary with respect to the Corentyne River. For that the Government of Guyana is ridiculed by the writer, but may I remind him/her that this was the position of the British before our independence in 1966. It was the position that Britain and The Netherlands all but signed off on by September of 1939. It is the position of every Guyanese who is informed of the facts and the law.

As if it were at all necessary to impugn the sanctity of agreements that established the point where the boundaries among Guyana, Brazil and Suriname meet, the writer states that Guyana should "move towards an international commission to definitively settle this (the Corentyne River dispute) and the more (emphasis mine) contentious issue of the New River Triangle." Guyana has not traditionally been a member of the less than handful of countries that advocate the reopening or revision of boundary agreements, treaties or awards which are solemnly entered into. Guyana is not about to join them. Secondly, the writer should perhaps be forgiven if he has forgotten that there is an established mechanism of meetings of the Border Commissions of Guyana and Suriname. It is Suriname's turn to issue invitations for the next meeting.

The writer charges that the Government of Guyana has neglected to seek an arrangement with Suriname that would have ensured the use of the Corentyne River by ships transporting sugar from the expanded facility at Skeldon. Not so. Suriname's notification purporting to extend Surinamese law and regulations into the Corentyne River (dated May 15, 2008 but received in Guyana on July 7, 2008) was responded to by Guyana. In its response Guyana stated that Surinamese officials could not arrogate to themselves the authority to institute the arrangements mentioned. Guyana requested consultations. There was no response from Suriname until after the incident of October 14, 2008.

Again, the writer should be forgiven for either not making himself aware or not knowing or recognising that Suriname's position is not to negotiate rights to the use of the river, but to impose terms by which Guyana and Guyanese would be allowed to use it. Is the writer suggesting that this is a position that Guyana must accept?

I have counted 33 inaccuracies and unsubstantiated assertions in the piece. Space did not allow me to address each of them.
Mr Editor, I have full respect for the right of journalists to write and express opinions, however contrary to Guyana's position those opinions might be or supportive to those who maintain claims to Guyana's territory and or seek to impugn our rights.

What I object to and cannot entertain are opinion pieces that are not based on fact and law or are so subjective, that truth and fact must be suppressed – even if the result is an attack on the interests of every Guyanese. That, Mr Editor, borders on the unpardonable.
Yours faithfully,
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett
Minister of Foreign Affairs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com

URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/there-is-no-agreeme...the-corentyne-river/

http://www.kaieteurnews.com/?p=12074

We will detain any vessel in breach of the 1981 law "” Suriname Ambassador

October 24, 2008


Suriname's Ambassador to Guyana, Manorma Soeknandan, said yesterday that the detention of the GuySuCo leased vessel, Lady Chandra I, was not a show of force or a direct attack against Guyana's right to use the Corentyne River.
Suriname detained the Lady Chandra I, last week, towed the vessel to a Suriname port, and locked up the crew until the owner paid a fine. The vessel was heading to Skeldon to uplift a cargo of sugar destined for a foreign port.

Ambassador Soeknandan said that the vessel was in breach of a law enacted in 1981 that stipulates that any vessel above 50 gross tonnes in the Corentyne must be escorted by a pilot attached to the Suriname Maritime Department. "The vessel in question weighed 375 gross tonnes."
She said that regardless of the registration of the vessel, "be it Chinese or American or Surinamese, the vessel would be detained once its captain ignores the use of a pilot once the vessel weighs above 50 gross tonnes."
When asked about the application of this law in the past, Ambassador Soeknandan directed the reporters to the archives. However, there has been no such arrest in the Corentyne in recent memory.
When a reporter pointed this out to the Ambassador, she insisted that there should be some research.
In 1977, during talks between the two countries, Guyana's Foreign Minister Fred Wills granted Suriname exclusive rights to the river and agreed that the boundary lay at the high water mark on the Guyana side.
The law, which the Ambassador said was enacted in 1981, will apply to any vessel, even Suriname-registered vessels, according to the envoy.
However, President Bharrat Jagdeo told the local press that he was unaware of any such law and that he had examined every note of contention between the two countries over the years.
He said that the Suriname action has come in the wake of the United Nations Law of the Sea Tribunal that settled the off-shore boundary dispute between Guyana and Suriname.
Ambassador Soeknandan said that the detention is not about using the river and that it is not about a test of diplomacy. Guyana had dispatched diplomatic notes in the wake of the detention of the vessel.
She said that someone needed to explain the diplomatic effort if the vessel detained had been a Surinamese-registered vessel.
And reacting to the charge that her country used force, the Ambassador said that the military was never involved in the detention. "They do not have the authority," she said.
"The detention was done by the maritime authorities and the police."
Guyana is, however, not satisfied with the state of affairs and, according to Ambassador Soeknandan, the two countries are still talking with a view to resolving any contentious issues.

http://www.kaieteurnews.com/?p=12149

Suriname's actions not supported by any known law – Foreign Affairs Minister
October 25, 2008

Foreign Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett has noted that while Suriname is claiming to have total control of the Corentyne River, the authorities there must be aware that this is only a ˜claim.' The minister added that a claim is not a ˜right.'

On Thursday, Suriname's Ambassador to Guyana, Manorma Soeknandan, told members of the media that the detention of the GuySuCo-leased vessel, Lady Chandra I, was not a show of force or a direct attack against Guyana's right to use the Corentyne River.

In response, Guyana's Foreign Affairs Minister said that Guyana has stated on several occasions that it was an act of aggression, taking into consideration the details of how the boat was detained and the charges instituted against the Guyanese people, including one for illegal immigration.

"So we maintain that if you come and take them to your country, how could they be charged for illegal immigration?" Minister Rodrigues-Birkett questioned.

The minister maintains the view that, in the absence of any agreement with Suriname on the river, Suriname cannot institute regulations without some sort of consultations with Guyana.

She explained that, in Guyana's Note Verbale to Suriname, Guyana has indicated that this country is open to discussions.

However, according to the minister, Suriname has since responded to Guyana by saying that the Corentyne River belongs to Suriname, and that Suriname is free to institute regulations.

Suriname has also suggested that the border commission is a forum for the two countries to discuss border issues; but, according to Minister Rodrigues-Birkett, Suriname is supposed to be the one to issue imputations for the border commission, since Guyana held the last meeting in 2003, and it is now Suriname's turn.


And while Guyana is pushing for a diplomatic route out of the situation, the Suriname Ambassador has said that there is no need for a diplomatic route, since the vessel violated regulations.


She contended that diplomacy would be meaningless if the vessel detained is a Surinamese vessel. Ambassador Soeknandan said that the vessel detained was in excess of 50 gross tonnes and therefore needed to be escorted by a pilot out of Suriname. This, she added, was in keeping with a Suriname law enacted in 1981.

When asked for a comment, President Bharrat Jagdeo said that any law Suriname enacts would have no bearing on Guyana. "That is a law for Suriname. It is not a law for Guyana."

On Thursday, the Suriname Ambassador had noted that the country would detain any vessel in breach of the 1981 law, which stipulates that any vessel above 50 gross tonnes in the Corentyne River must be escorted by a pilot attached to the Suriname Maritime Department. "The vessel in question weighed 375 gross tonnes."

She said that, regardless of the registration of the vessel, "be it Chinese, or American, or Surinamese, the vessel would be detained once its captain ignores the use of a pilot once the vessel weighs above 50 gross tonnes."

When asked about the application of this law in the past, Ambassador Soeknandan directed the reporters to the archives. However, there has been no such arrest in the Corentyne in recent memory.

When a reporter pointed this out to the ambassador, she insisted that there should be some research.

Research has shown that Suriname has detained vessels weighing far below the 50 gross tonnes stipulated, among them trawlers operated by Pritipaul Singh Holdings.

Yesterday, Minister Rodrigues-Birkett said that, "Well, we are neighbours, and I think there is a way good neighbours operate, and we have already indicated to them our position... they have indicated to us their position, but at the same time they are saying there is a forum where it should be discussed and let's see what would be the next move.

"As you know, these are not issues that you can solve in 24 hours... We are looking at what's before us, but we were thinking that we would have been able to engage and have this issue sorted out."

The minister also said that, "We have been using that river for time immemorial, and obviously we have some rights." She explained that the regulations being imposed on Guyana by Suriname are unacceptable.

"Let's look at the practical situation. Are we saying that if a boat is in the river, more on our side of the shore, that if it is suspected to have any illegal drugs in it, and because Suriname put a regulation in place, we must call them, if that happens? Certainly we cannot accept those kinds of impositions on us," the minister noted.

She explained that for a solution to be found on the disputed river, the matter will have to be taken to the International Court and Suriname will have to agree to it.

Meanwhile, as it relates to the diplomatic notes issued to CARICOM and the United Nations (UN) on the issue, Minister Rodrigues-Birkett said that while the UN has acknowledged receipt of the letter, no other response has been forthcoming as yet from the UN or CARICOM.

Suriname detained the Lady Chandra I last week, towed the vessel to a Suriname port, and locked up the crew until the owner paid a fine. The vessel was heading to Skeldon to uplift a cargo of sugar destined for a foreign port.

as long as we got a cowardly indian government, surinamme will be pushing us around. jagdeo and his lot is a bunch of ninnies that run and hide under their bed at the least sign of trouble. they wasting money all over the place, like the $45m on the durban park area which was supposed to be a recreational center now scaled back to be redefined as green space aka jungle.

cowardly indians don't know how to run guyana, the pnc under rickford burke will bring back honor to our country as in the LFS days.

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
as long as we got a cowardly indian government, surinamme will be pushing us around. []
cowardly indians don't know how to run guyana, the pnc under rickford burke will bring back honor to our country as in the LFS days.

Now, now. Burnham was no more a hero when dealing with Suriname than Jagdeo is.

cowardly indians don't know how to run guyana, the pnc under rickford burke will bring back honor to our country as in the LFS days.

I could not have stated it any Better Benshit. WE ARE ALL WAITIN FOR DE GLORY DAYS OF BURNHAM TO RETURN. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE WORLD CANNOT WAIT FOR RICE FLOUR, CHANN DHAL, BLACKOUT, NO SALT, KICK DOWN DOORS, SLAVERY AT HOPE ESTATE.I can go on and on listing glory after glory but i dont run on energizer batteries.

The then Foreign Minister, Fred Wills, when he led the local delegation to meet with Suriname in the Corentyne way back in 1977, he agreed that the border between the two countries should be the high water mark of the Corentyne. This meant that a section of the Guyana shore would be Suriname.
It might have been better for Mr. Wills to force an agreement that stipulated that the channel would have formed the boundary.
But Fred Wills also got Suriname to agree to unlimited access by Guyanese vessels. Economic activity was controlled by Suriname and not long after, that neighbouring country decided that fishermen wishing to operate in the Corentyne needed to be registered by Suriname. This is the case today.

The P.N.C. LEFT ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS FOR THE P.P.P. TO SOLVE.

quote:

Originally posted by Nehru:
cowardly indians don't know how to run guyana, the pnc under rickford burke will bring back honor to our country as in the LFS days.

I could not have stated it any Better Benshit. WE ARE ALL WAITIN FOR DE GLORY DAYS OF BURNHAM TO RETURN. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE WORLD CANNOT WAIT FOR RICE FLOUR, CHANN DHAL, BLACKOUT, NO SALT, KICK DOWN DOORS, SLAVERY AT HOPE ESTATE.I can go on and on listing glory after glory but i dont run on energizer batteries.

how quickly we forget, back in lfsb time this type of nonsense didn't happen, the surinamese were scared of pissing off the great man. as for your complaint about rice flour and dhall and salt, this is a bunch of hogwash. wheat flour is bad for your health, this is a known fact, once again lfsb was ahead of his time in his thinking to know the nutritional value of rice flour compared to wheat which has too much glutin and bad for health. now salt, i never heard of such a shortage, and if true then people can easily make their own salt just like the racist gandhi did during the salt march. now run back into your cave and contemplate the true virtues of the great leader of guyana lfsb, may god rest his soul.

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
how quickly we forget, back in lfsb time this type of nonsense didn't happen, the surinamese were scared of pissing off the great man.

Yeah? You must have been dreaming! Suriname has always had an army far better trained and equipped than Guyana. I lived in Suriname during the Burnham regime years and know with great certainty that Suriname had no fear of Guyana at any stage. Before Suriname became independent the Dutch used to even have short range missiles stationed in Suriname, together with a couple of their airforce planes and helicopters. Not the kind of stuff Guyana was in possession of.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
how quickly we forget, back in lfsb time this type of nonsense didn't happen, the surinamese were scared of pissing off the great man.

Yeah? You must have been dreaming! Suriname has always had an army far better trained and equipped than Guyana. I lived in Suriname during the Burnham regime years and know with great certainty that Suriname had no fear of Guyana at any stage. Before Suriname became independent the Dutch used to even have short range missiles stationed in Suriname, together with a couple of their airforce planes and helicopters. Not the kind of stuff Guyana was in possession of.

those are a lot of empty words, the fact remains that suriname towed the line when the pnc were in charge, a sign of respect and fear. now they are trigger happy that guyana is run by a bunch of cowardly indian with a few token negroes here and there.

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
those are a lot of empty words, the fact remains that suriname towed the line when the pnc were in charge, a sign of respect and fear. now they are trigger happy that guyana is run by a bunch of cowardly indian with a few token negroes here and there.

Why are you lying? Where do you suck those lies from??? What lines did Suriname tow? None. Burnham could only scare Guyanese. So don't come boasting about Burnham. He was a nobody.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
those are a lot of empty words, the fact remains that suriname towed the line when the pnc were in charge, a sign of respect and fear. now they are trigger happy that guyana is run by a bunch of cowardly indian with a few token negroes here and there.

Why are you lying? Where do you suck those lies from??? What lines did Suriname tow? None. Burnham could only scare Guyanese. So don't come boasting about Burnham. He was a nobody.

how come none of this crap happend during the pnc time? the surinamese knew not to mess with a black government.

so these surinamese saying that if I throw a fishing line into the courantyne river (from the guyana side), that i would be stealing suriname's fish and they can arrest me?

quote:

Originally posted by BONUS:
so these surinamese saying that if I throw a fishing line into the courantyne river (from the guyana side), that i would be stealing suriname's fish and they can arrest me?

Depending on what you are fishing for - lukanani or punany

The crooks ofthe matter is ... Suriname has recently been out-foxed by Guyana as Jagdeo challenged her via the UN knowing fully well that he had the brains and backings of Insanally and Ramphal. Simply put.... Suriname lost the battle.

All the gimmicks we are now witnessing are related to Jagdeo out-foxing Suriname. These skirmishes which are Suriname's crude way of responding to their lost of the oil wells, will not be enough to prevent Jagdeo and CGX from drilling for the oil!

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
as long as we got a cowardly indian government, surinamme will be pushing us around. jagdeo and his lot is a bunch of ninnies that run and hide under their bed at the least sign of trouble. they wasting money all over the place, like the $45m on the durban park area which was supposed to be a recreational center now scaled back to be redefined as green space aka jungle.

cowardly indians don't know how to run guyana, the pnc under rickford burke will bring back honor to our country as in the LFS days.

War and anger does not solve anything. Guyana seeks to settle matters diplomatically before resorting to any confrontation.

I rather little Guyana stay out of any confrontation; I like the peace. Suriname just wants to be seen as more powerful than us.

quote:

Originally posted by Nippy:
The crooks ofthe matter is ... Suriname has recently been out-foxed by Guyana as Jagdeo challenged her via the UN knowing fully well that he had the brains and backings of Insanally and Ramphal. Simply put.... Suriname lost the battle.

All the gimmicks we are now witnessing are related to Jagdeo out-foxing Suriname. These skirmishes which are Suriname's crude way of responding to their lost of the oil wells, will not be enough to prevent Jagdeo and CGX from drilling for the oil!

Suriname wants to prove they are a more powerful nation than Guyana. They see us getting too strong too quickly and just want to establish themselves. Guyana is not moved by any of their actions and we will not rest and see them bullying us neither.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Benford:
those are a lot of empty words, the fact remains that suriname towed the line when the pnc were in charge, a sign of respect and fear. now they are trigger happy that guyana is run by a bunch of cowardly indian with a few token negroes here and there.

Why are you lying? Where do you suck those lies from??? What lines did Suriname tow? None. Burnham could only scare Guyanese. So don't come boasting about Burnham. He was a nobody.

Burhnam twice kicked the Surinamese asses out of the New River Triangle and they ran with their tails between their legs. We also used our superior intellect to win the recent U.N. settlement.

http://www.guyana.org/features/postindependence/chapter9.html

Guyana ejects Suriname survey team

One month after Guyana became independent, officials of Suriname and Guyana met in London to discuss the Surinamese claim. There was a free and frank exchange of views, and the Dutch offered to host a follow-up meeting in The Hague. That meeting never occurred, but early in the following year, Pengel visited Guyana and held discussions with Burnham on various matters, including the border issue.

In an effort to assert its claim, the Suriname Government in December 1967 sent a land survey party into the New River Triangle. They were confronted by members of the Guyana Police Force who asked the team to leave. The Suriname authorities immediately protested the action as a grave breach of their sovereignty and asked the Netherlands Government through their Ambassador in London to request Sir Lionel Luckhoo, Guyana's High Commissioner, to provide a clarification at the earliest possible time. In reply, Luckhoo informed the Dutch Ambassador that no permission had been granted to the Government of Suriname to carry out any survey in the area and, therefore, its presence was illegal and a violation of Guyana's territorial integrity. In the circumstances, Luckhoo explained, the Guyana police had acted with commendable restraint.

Following this incident, an understanding was reached between the Governments of Guyana and Suriname that the latter would refrain from encroaching on Guyana's territory.

GDF ejects Surinamese military from New River Triangle

Throughout 1968, neither the Dutch nor the Surinamese showed any interest in holding talks on the border issue. On 14 September 14, 1968, Burnham wrote to Pengel expressing Guyana's desire to discuss fully the settlement of all issues between the two countries but he received no reply.

But while Guyana was showing interest in discussing the border issue, Suriname was carrying out a clandestine occupation of the New River triangle in clear breach of the understanding arrived at in 1967. On 19 August 1969, a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) patrol found an unauthorised camp and a partially completed airstrip west of the Corentyne River in the New River triangle area. As the Guyanese soldiers moved into the camp-site, a number of uniformed Surinamese opened fire on them. But the Guyanese soldiers repelled the Surinamese who abandoned the camp and fled in the direction of the Suriname border.

The camp built by Suriname's armed forces on Guyana's territory was constructed as a military installation. It had underground bunkers especially constructed to protect against shell and mortar attacks and was equipped with towers and machine-gun emplacements. Maps left by the Surinamese revealed a plan to occupy the entire New River area with a series of military camps, with the camp serving as a base and supply headquarters. Judging from the personal effects and accommodation facilities left at the camp, it was estimated that there were between 50 to 55 men occupying it. They left behind a Caterpillar bulldozer, a jeep, an electric power plant, a mechanical water pump, power driven hand saws, a large refrigerator and well-stocked kitchens.

Two days later, Prime Minister Burnham informed the Guyana National Assembly that strong protests were sent to the Governments of the Netherlands and Suriname. He also announced that the GDF would remain in the New River triangle to prevent any further incursions. In concluding his statement he said: "There can be no doubt that the New River Triangle is part of the territory of Guyana and has been in our possession from time immemorial. This Government is pledged to maintain traditional friendly relations with our neighbours, including Suriname, and at the same time, our country's territorial integrity."

Shortly after, the GDF established a permanent military outpost, named Camp Jaguar, in the New River triangle.

It is to be hoped that those in Suriname who may still be smarting from the outcome of the historic ruling by the UN international tribunal on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), following the illegal disruption of the Canadian oil company, CGX Energy, from its drilling operations back in June 2002, may be counselled by others who know better, that this is not the way to forge sensible relations between two neighbouring states that are members of the Caribbean Community.