A SERIOUS CHARGE

The irony of the current dispute between Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados is  leading - if it is not already there - to a rift between Trinidad and our  sister island Tobago. Already, the voices on the ground in Tobago have been  raised in total dismay at what they see as the lack of support from the  Central Government as displayed in the Government’s failure to even inform the Tobago House of Assembly  of its intention to drop the charges against the two Barbadian fishermen who  were allegedly caught fishing illegally in our waters for our flying fish.

In view of the Barbadian Prime Minister’s threat to take sanctions on our  exports to that country — action that would have severe economic  repercussions for exporters and workers — one might believe that the Central  Government thought it was acting in the national interest to have the charges  dropped.  But surely no Government Minister has that right and we can find  no excuse for our Minister of Foreign Affairs giving orders to the police or  the courts to drop charges against anyone. Such action was entirely out of  line even in the face of the totally and unbelievably arrogant attitude of  Mr. Owen Arthur who now enjoys the dubious distinction of calling two of our  Prime Ministers liars. All this apart, what can the Director of Public Prosecutions now tell the country? And what can be done  about the police officers who acted on the order of a Minister and offered  no evidence to the court in this matter.

The THA has been completely sidelined without any knowledge of any of the  events, including Mr. Manning’s hurried trip to accomplishing what some see as an appeasement and from all accounts without the courtesy of even being told that “talks” would resume today in Barbados. Is Tobago going to have any part to play? Prime Minister Arthur, has made a serious charge against this country, that  under the 1990 Delimitation Treaty between Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela,  Trinidad and Tobago in essence had tacitly agreed to Venezuela’s long  standing claim to one-third of Guyana’s land. Mr Arthur describes the 1990 Delimitation Treaty as purporting “unilaterally to  appropriate to Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago an enormous part of  Barbados’ and Guyana’s maritime territory, as well as one-third of Guyana’s  land territory.”  There has been no official response to Mr. Arthur’s charge by  Prime Minister Manning, whose trip to Barbados, as  Arthur has pointed out was “for cordial discussions on a number of issues.”  Neither, interestingly enough, has there been a comment from the Government  of Guyana or Venezuela.

If what Mr. Arthur has stated is what the 1990 Treaty has indeed sought to impose  specifically on Guyana then this is in conflict with the spirit of the  decision taken in 1970 at the end of talks between Guyana and Venezuela, on  the issue of Venezuela’s claim to Guyana territory, that Venezuela would not  re-open any such claim for a period of 25 years.  Late Trinidad and Tobago  Prime Minister, Dr. Eric Williams, had acted as arbitrator, and the 25-year  decision was binding on both parties, and by extension, in 1990, on this  country as well. And even though the question of the maritime boundaries of the four Caribbean  nations - Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Guyana and Venezuela - is a crucial  component of the 1990 Delimitation Treaty, and Barbados’ right to fish  concerns are involved, nonetheless Mr. Arthur’s defining of this country’s  reported 14-year position on the Guyana-Venezuela land dispute must take  pride of place.

Nevertheless, we question the right of the Government of Barbados to  introduce this factor into the fishing dispute equation which has been a sore  point between Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados for several years. What is the  relevance, specifically, as any arrest of Barbados fishermen seeking to catch  fish in our waters, has tended to take place relatively close to Tobago  rather than immediately within the maritime boundary. The large and profitable catches of flying fish, which are at the heart of  the dispute are to be found much nearer to Tobago than  the boundary itself.  Mr. Arthur has said that the Trinidad and Tobago-Venezuela  Treaty was not relevant to Barbados, and that his country had triggered the  dispute settlement mechanism under the United Nations Convention of the Law  of the Sea [UNCLOS].

At the other end of the dispute scale, Prime Minister Manning, according to  the Barbados PM, had advised him that a Cabinet review of the 1990  Delimitation Treaty had concluded that the Treaty was law, and “that as a  consequence Trinidad and Tobago could not act in contravention of the law”.  We should await the outcome of the binding  dispute settlement procedures under the United Nations Convention on the Law  of the Sea. In turn, Barbados in the spirit of  CARICOM should refrain from taking any unilateral action, including  encouraging its fishermen to fish in Trinidad and Tobago waters, before the  resolution of the dispute by UNCLOS, which we hope will be achieved as  speedily as possible. In the meantime Mr. Manning must talk to us and especially to the people of Tobago.