PM Arthur is grand charging

THE EDITOR: Allow me to express my astonishment that the Prime Minister of the sovereign State of Barbados, The Rt Honourable Owen Arthur found it necessary to issue a half-baked, formal statement (Newsday Feb 17, p 4) after his Monday morning meeting with PM Manning who unfortunately travelled to Bridgetown to be insulted.

That statement is riddled with so many deliberate errors, misrepresentations and sensationalism on the question of the prevailing norms of the 1982 Montego Bay Law of the Sea Convention/The 1990 TT/Venezuela Treaty that it is not worth the paper on which it is printed. It is an affront to and will have sullied the diplomatic image of Barbados before the international community/law of the sea experts. It is intended to deceive and deliberately mislead and obfuscate two separate and quite distinct maritime issues, ie the current flying fish dispute and secondly the maritime boundary question. In fact it is not clear which of these two marine questions is being submitted albeit unilaterally but procedurally flawed to the jurisdiction of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (UN). He also refers to International Arbitration and erroneously states that both are compulsory for TT.

What Arthur’s statement reveals to the embarrassment of PM Manning and possibly to the Venezuelans is that PM Manning gave an undertaking to Heads of Government to undertake unilaterally a review of the TT/Venezuela Treaty. However on assuming office in 1991 PM Manning indicated quite unambiguously that he had no problem with the Accord. PM Manning having made so many faux pas on national issues is now taking his penchant for “foot in the mouth” to the international setting and blemishing the outstanding diplomatic reputation forged by the hard work of TT diplomats. Barbados cannot now argue that after 14 years of enforcement and existence that the 1990 TT/Venezuela Treaty is not relevant and opposable to it. Barbados as a neighbouring maritime state had maritime interests that stood to be affected by the Treaty. Failure on its part to reserve its position on the 1990 Treaty when the said Treaty was registered at the UN in 1992 is a classic case of estoppel. The International Tribunal for Law of the Sea will have no difficulties in rejecting out of hand all objections made by Barbados in 2004 if and when the dispute is adjudicated.

 Contrary to PM Arthur, and this is unforgivable arrogance for a Prime Minister, the 1990 bilateral treaty did not allocate either to TT or to Venezuela even a pimple of maritime territory belonging to Barbados or Guyana. Beyond the 12-mile territorial sea littoral states exercise rights over resources and not ownership of the sea, seabed and subsoil. Additionally to categorically state that the Treaty allocated one-third of Guyana’s land territory to Venezuela is the apex of Bajan irresponsibility, a fabrication and pure, unadulterated sensationalism geared to rope in Guyana to gang up against TT. How can PM Arthur flippantly dismiss the feasibility of a negotiated TT/Barbados maritime boundary when such negotiations have not even gotten off the ground?  The UN will not be fooled.

International jurisprudence requires the prior conduct of meaningful negotiations among the parties leading to a settlement as well as the exhaustion of local remedies. According to PM Arthur, PM Manning agrees with his position. Having not commenced bilateral maritime boundary negotiations, how can PM Arthur’s statement speak of “. . . after careful review of the current status of its negotiations with TT on maritime boundaries . . .”? Who’s fooling who? Barbados will be considered a laughing stock by the Tribunal for attempting to unilaterally submit a non-existent maritime boundary dispute on which national negotiating positions have not even been considered. Or will Barbados ask the Tribunal or his unilateral International Arbitration to declare the 1990 TT/Venezuela Treaty null and void when Barbados has no locus standi in the matter since the Treaty is res inter alios acta. Let it be understood, and Barbados is quite au fait with this established procedure, that it is only by carefully and precisely worded agreement arrived at by TT and Barbados that the fishing matter can be submitted to the Tribunal. There is no basis or justification for the Hamburg International Tribunal being seized of a TT/Barbados maritime boundary matter at present. As for Caricom, it can only perform a good office’s function between two sovereign states.

STEPHEN KANGAL
Caroni