Days ahead of the June, 30, 2020 International Court of Justice hearing of the Venezuela/Guyana Border Controversy, Venezuela had already made it clear that it will not attend the hearing on the grounds that the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to hear this case. On the 26th of June, 2020, Venezuela launched a Commission for Defense of the Essequibo and the Atlantic Facade.
“The Commission for the Defense of the Essequibo and its Atlantic Façade of the National Assembly (CODEFA-AN) before the recent statements by officials of the Maduro regime, declares the following:
1) The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in its Article 10, establishes that the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela corresponds to that of the General Captaincy of Venezuela before the political transformation that began on April 19, 1810, at which time the Essequibo was part of the province of Guayana, with modifications resulting from non-flawed arbitration treaties and awards of nullity in clear reference to the null and void of the Paris Arbitration Award of 1899.
2) CODEFA-AN since its creation in 2018, has reaffirmed the defense of Venezuela’s rights over the territory of the Essequibo and the Atlantic Facade, which is based on a State policy developed through the 1966 Geneva Agreement, with a nationalist and integrationist approach.
3) CODEFA-AN has flatly rejected that Guyana has granted concessions to international oil companies on the Atlantic Front, in the Venezuelan Exclusive Economic Zone generated by the Orinoco Delta, in clear ignorance of the spirit of the Geneva Agreement. This position has received the full endorsement of the National Assembly since 2018, as found in seven (7) Parliamentary Agreements approved since that date.
We reject the publication made today by the Guyana’s Department of Energy of a list of companies would be pre-selected to commercialize oil that has begun to exploit in marine and submarine areas by delimiting
4) CODEFA-AN has made a systematic call to maintain the controversy within the scope of the political-diplomatic dispute resolution mechanisms, which it reiterates on this occasion; and has communicated its position to the diplomatic corps accredited in Venezuela.
5) The regime headed by Nicolás Maduro and his clumsy “peace diplomacy” has incurred a series of errors and omissions, weakening in recent years the defense of the Essequibo and its Atlantic Façade. Now, again, irresponsibly and reactively, Guyana and only one of the many transnational oil companies that operates in that country are blamed for a so-called “imperial compromise”, when in reality it has not been sufficiently forceful in the actions in defense of our claim, which also have been surrounded by total secrecy and opacity.
6) The Maduro regime widely rejected by Venezuelans by condemning us to suffer a complex humanitarian emergency, in the company of its law firm and spurious Deputies, has made in recent hours a cynical call to all sectors of the country for the defense of Sovereignty of the Essequibo and its Atlantic Facade, a few days after the oral hearings at the International Court of Justice and has also signaled the convocation of the Council of State. It should be recalled that the CODEFA-AN promoted at the time, the approval by the legitimate National Assembly of the “Parliamentary Agreement rejecting the claim of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana to judicialize the controversy and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty over the Island of Anacoco and the Atlantic Facade ”, which in its operative paragraph five (5) requested the convocation of the Defense Council of the Nation to analyze the different scenarios and determine a national strategy to defend the inalienable rights of the Republic in the legitimate Essequibo claim understood as a matter of State ”; to which the regime ignored, ignoring that this is an issue that required hard and solidarity work by the entire Nation, given that it is a matter of vital national interest.
7) The defense of the Essequibo and its Atlantic Facade has been a legacy of democratic governments, while dictatorships have been characterized by their leniency. This makes the need to implement the proposal for the formation of a National Emergency Government with the participation of all sectors more effective, which will be in a better position to appropriately defend our territorial integrity, taking the Republic out of the pitiful conjuncture that takes us back to the end of the so-called “Yellow Liberalism”: invertebrate, sick, and ungoverned by corrupt tyrants and unable to defend a single span of the sacred soil of the Homeland.
8) The CODEFA-AN of the legitimate National Assembly will continue to express its rejection of the judicialization of the controversy, of the unilateral and unfriendly actions that Guyana has been executing by granting oil concessions and authorizing exploratory campaigns in maritime zones to be delimited from the Essequibo and even in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Venezuela, as well as calling to resume the diplo path matic under the 1966 Geneva Agreement. However, what was said by regime officials about the alleged sending of “PROTEST NOTES TO TRANSNATIONALS” shows their clumsiness and lack of expertise, given that the Protest Notes are addressed to the Governments of the States Nations involved, while communications can be sent notifying said companies of the legal uncertainty in the concession contracts within which they operate.
9) CODEFA-AN again calls on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces to reestablish the rule of law and protect the territorial integrity of the Republic in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, lending its support in the formation of an Emergency Government. National.
10) CODEFA-AN reiterates its commitment to the historical and incontrovertible position of Venezuela, namely:
a) The International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim unilaterally attempted by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana on March 29, 2018. Venezuela is not a signatory to the Optional Clause of Compulsory Jurisdiction, enshrined in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court is not part of multilateral treaties that recognize its jurisdiction.
b) The 1966 Geneva Agreement does not contain any express provision for the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, since its purpose is to seek the friendly settlement of the dispute and the Secretary-General of the United Nations cannot substitute consent clear and free that Venezuela must give the jurisdiction of the Court.
c) Guyana must return to good offices to resolve the controversy or agree with Venezuela on another means of peaceful solution of a political-diplomatic nature that is appropriate with the provisions of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
d) Once the land controversy between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has been resolved, the maritime delimitation will have to be addressed, which is another pending controversy, as dictated by Public International Law and the 1966 Geneva Agreement itself.
Caracas, June 26, 2020.
Dip. Williams Dávila (Presidente)
Dip. Sergio Vergara (Vicepresidente)
Dip. Luis Florido
Dip. Edgar Zambrano
Dip. Marialbert Barrios
Dip. Luis Emilio Rondón
Dip. Marianella Fernández
Dip. Teodoro Campos
Secretario: Javier González”