WASHINGTON DC/PARAMARIBO - Suriname en Guyana zullen er goed aan doen om een vreedzame oplossing te zoeken voor het overgebleven territoriaal geschil, nadat een uitspraak is gedaan in de arbitrage over het maritiem grensgeschil tussen Suriname en Guyana.

Dat schrijft aankomend ambassadeur bij de Verenigde Naties, Henry MacDonald, vanuit Washington DC in een persbericht, uitgegeven door het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. In Washington zijn gisteren de mondelinge pleidooien van partijen in de arbitrageprocedure afgerond. Beide partijen hebben de afgelopen twee weken hun zaak met verve verdedigd. De uitspraak van het Internationaal Tribunaal inzake de Rechten van de Zee wordt in de eerste helft van 2007 verwacht. Behalve het belang dat in het algemeen daarbij gediend is, moet de ontwikkeling van West-Suriname voor Suriname een belangrijke factor zijn om zo gauw mogelijk de andere grenskwesties op te lossen, vindt de diplomaat. Hij is momenteel plaatsvervangend vertegenwoordiger van Suriname bij de OAS. “De ontwikkeling van West-Suriname is in 1980 in feite door Guyana geremd door zijn weigering om aan de Wereldbank, die bereid was de financiering van het project mogelijk te maken, een zogenaamde verklaring van no-objection te geven.” MacDonald: “Het maritiem grensgeschil tussen Suriname en Guyana staat niet los van twee additionele geschillen die in de historie van beide landen een rol hebben gespeeld. Eén geschil betrof de jurisdictie over de Corantijnrivier.

Het andere de territoriale driehoek in het zuiden tussen de Boven-Corantijn en de Koeroeni-Kutari.” Hij geeft aan dat de jurisdictie van Suriname over de Corantijnrivier al langer dan tien jaar niet meer in discussie is geweest. Anders is het gesteld met de driehoek in het Zuid-Westen. Dit gebied is in 1969 door Guyanese militairen bezet en ondanks een “duidelijke afspraak die in 1970 tussen president Forbes Burnham van Guyana en premier Jules Sedney van Suriname is gemaakt dat het gebied gedemilitariseerd zou worden, heeft president Bharat Jagdeo in januari 2002 te kennen gegeven dat Guyana zich niet aan deze afspraak houdt”, stelt MacDonald.

De spanningen tussen Georgetown en Paramaribo laaiden in juni 2000 hoog op, toen president Jules Wijdenbosch met wapengekletter een boorplatform van het Canadese CGX Energy uit Surinames territoriale wateren liet verwijderen. Georgetown had de Canadezen concessie verleend om in het gebied naar aardolie te boren. Diverse overleg-ronden daarna leverden geen resultaat op. DWT.

Sally, Henky,Bhai,
Niet omdat je vind dat iets van je is,dat het dan ook van jou is! Grenzen in zee is altijd al heel moeilijk. Zie recentelijk de "dash" om Noordpool te claimen. Er is eeuwig gezeur tussen landen over hoe een zeegrens moet lopen.
Ik ben benieuwd hoe het op tekening is? Kan je beetje gaan vergelijken met zeegrenzen in de wereld. Dan kan je oordeel geven.
Hoe vervelend het ook is voor SME, maar je hebt grenzen nu duidelijk en carry on. Wta je in je grond hebt geef je al weg. Ik zou zeggen probeer dat goed te hebben.

Henky spoort helemaal niet om de tribunal bevooroordeeld te noemen.

Jason,
Ik vind je reacties heel goed.

Shamefull

Hier het artikel uit de Telegraaf:

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/7135 … lecht.html


Het laatste alinea:

President Bharrat Jagdeo van Guyana heeft zijn Surinaamse ambtgenoot laten weten de uitspraak van het hof te accepteren. In de afgelopen jaren ondernam Jagdeo diplomatieke pogingen om tot gezamenlijke exploratie van het maritieme gebied te komen. Suriname wenste niet op de voorstellen van Jagdeo in te gaan.



De Hindostaans-Guyanese President Bharrat Jagdeo weet hoe zijn huiswerk moet maken.
Laat de Surinaamse President Venetiaan bij hem in de leer gaan.

De ingrediënten zijn weggeven, de koek van en voor de Surinaamse bevolking is bijna op!

Henky,
Elk land dat aan zee grenst heeft een 12 mijlzone dat als Landsgrens telt, tenzij er andere landen/eilanden binnen die 12 mijl liggen. ABC eilanden/Venezuela. In Azie heb je ook voorbeelden, Singapore, Maleisie etc.
De economische zone is 200 NM.

Je schreeuwt al iets zonder zelfs te weten hoe de grenzen lopen.

Hoe ervaart Guyana de oplossing van het Tribunaal?



GUYANA/SURINAME BORDER DISPUTE FINALLY SETTLED:
UN Tribunal ruling in Guyana’s favour
-Guyana now has undisputed title to the area where the CGX rig was exploring for oil before it was forcibly evicted by the Surinamese military forces.
“My fellow Guyanese - this has been a great day for Guyana. Now it remains for us to lay the foundation for a long future of harmonious relations and practical cooperation with our brothers and sisters in Suriname - to whom, on your behalf, I extend the hand of friendship” – PRESIDENT BHARRAT JAGDEO

PRESIDENT Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday announced that Guyana is “very pleased” with the judgment of the Guyana/Suriname border dispute by the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea based in Hamburg.

The long-awaited and much-anticipated announcement of the decision on the Guyana/Suriname border dispute by the UN International Tribunal, was made public by President Jagdeo during an address to the nation yesterday afternoon.

“Guyana, which initiated this judicial process to settle once and for all any dispute over the maritime boundary with Suriname, is very pleased with the judgment. Guyana is particularly pleased that the Award was unanimous, with all five arbitrators signing on to it,” President Jagdeo declared.

According to the President, the Award, which is unanimous and legally binding, is in the interest of both our countries and the wider Caribbean and is one that “satisfies every one of Guyana’s objectives on all six of the core issues at the heart of the case”.

“When I say that on all these central issues Guyana’s interests and objectives are met, I do not mean to be triumphalist. That, in any event, would not be a proper posture for our country to adopt.”

“In fact, the Award is in the interest of both our countries and the wider Caribbean,” the Guyanese Head of State posited.

He also announced that the UN Tribunal has stated clearly that “Guyana now has undisputed title to the area” where the CGX rig was exploring for oil before it was forcibly evicted by the Surinamese military forces.

“In fact, that area lies a full 15 kilometres to the west of the boundary established by the Arbitral Tribunal, and is therefore well within Guyana’s waters,” Mr. Jagdeo said.

He noted, too, that the Tribunal’s Award is effective immediately, and Guyana looks forward to the prompt and successful resumption of petroleum exploration activities in these waters.

Following is the address to the nation by President Jagdeo yesterday afternoon on the award of the Guyana-Suriname Arbitral Tribunal.

“Fellow Guyanese – at precisely 4:00 p.m. (16:00 hours) Guyana time today, the Guyana-Suriname Arbitral Tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea made public its Final Award, which is unanimous and legally binding on both Parties.

After several thousand pages of written submissions contained in 13 printed volumes of ‘pleadings’; after scrutiny of literally hundreds of maps, old and new; after nearly three weeks of Oral Hearings last December, which followed earlier sessions in The Hague; after innumerable hours of analysing the law and the facts pertinent to the case - the Tribunal in its binding Award has defined the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname - as Guyana invited it to do three and a half years ago, when it initiated these arbitral proceedings under the United Nations Convention.

The Tribunal’s Award is contained in a volume of 167 pages, many of which are inevitably cast in highly technical, legal, geographic and cartographic terms, and it includes 5 maps.

“Guyana, which initiated this judicial process to settle once and for all any dispute over the maritime boundary with Suriname, is very pleased with the judgment. Guyana is particularly pleased that the Award was unanimous, with all five arbitrators signing on to it,” President Jagdeo declared.

The Award is very favourable to Guyana.
In particular, all of Guyana's principal objectives have been achieved. Most notably, we now have a definitive and permanent maritime boundary with Suriname. Guyana regards that boundary as fair and equitable to both States.

The Award has taken Guyana's major arguments fully into account, and now allows Guyana's licensees to resume their petroleum exploration activities in the part of the sea that Guyana has claimed, out to a distance of 200 miles from the coast, in accordance with international law.

The resolution of this dispute, which is now final and binding on the parties, will allow Guyana and Suriname to put this controversy behind them, and to proceed to cooperate as good neighbours on a wide range of issues.

Now, let me try to explain all this briefly, in layman’s terms, and leave it to the members of our Legal Team to elaborate. They will be available to answer questions from the news media tomorrow afternoon (today).

There were six core issues in this case, and Guyana’s interests and objectives have been met in each.

They were -
1. To establish that the Rule of International Law, not the rule of force, holds sway in CARICOM waters; and more specifically in the maritime areas of Guyana and Suriname.

2. To draw the boundary between the maritime areas of Guyana and Suriname in a manner that would be binding on both countries for all time and acknowledged by the international community.

3. To confirm that the line of the boundary would be influenced, above all, by the principle of equidistance for which Guyana had long contended and for which Guyana’s national law provides.

4. To secure Guyana’s sovereignty to the resources of the sea-bed on its continental shelf on the basis of an internationally recognized maritime boundary.

5. To enable Guyana’s licensees to return to the offshore area where they were exploring for oil in June 2000, when they were forced at gunpoint by a Surinamese naval vessel to abandon their activities and evacuate the area.

6. To achieve all this in a manner which allows Guyana and Suriname to cooperate as good neighbours and CARICOM partners in the development of their countries.

When I say that on all these central issues Guyana’s interests and objectives are met, I do not mean to be triumphalist. That, in any event, would not be a proper posture for our country to adopt.

In fact, the Award is in the interest of both our countries and the wider Caribbean. Let me explain why the Award satisfies every one of Guyana’s objectives on all six of the core issues at the heart of the case.

As to Core Issue 1: (Upholding the rule of law ) Suriname’s action on June 3, 2000 in interrupting the activities of the oil rig CE Thornton effectively prevented any further exploratory work in that maritime area – by anyone.

It certainly set back Guyana’s economic development. If that action was left as the determinant of the status quo, there would have been irreparable damage to Guyana’s development.

Moreover, left unchallenged, it undermined the purposes of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of which both Guyana and Suriname (and most of the world’s countries) are signatories.

The Tribunal has found that the expulsion of the CGX oil rig by Suriname on June 3, 2000 (I quote) ‘constituted a threat of the use of force in breach of the Convention (on the Law of the Sea), the UN Charter, and general international law’ (end of quote).

The Tribunal’s Award has confirmed the rule of law in CARICOM’s maritime areas.

So, on Core Issue 1, Guyana has achieved its objectives.
As to Core Issue 2: (Fixing a maritime boundary) Guyana’s resort to compulsory arbitration under the Law of the Sea Treaty came after extensive efforts to resolve this issue bilaterally.

Suriname did not want the maritime boundary to be established by the Tribunal despite the damage a continuing maritime dispute would cause. Suriname actually tried to prevent the Tribunal from reaching a conclusion on the merits of the case.

It did so by arguing that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix the maritime boundary – a step which inevitably lengthened the period and increased the costs of the arbitral process.

Guyana’s Legal Team argued strenuously against this. In the end, Guyana succeeded. The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction and has authoritatively established the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname. It has placed the matter beyond dispute.

So on Core Issue 2, Guyana has achieved its objectives.
As to Core Issue 3: (Where the boundary is) From the time of the establishment of the International Regime on the Law of the Sea in the 1950s, Guyana has asserted its acceptance of the principle of equidistance – a technical term for a method of establishing an equitable maritime boundary between neighbouring states, by drawing a boundary line in the sea that is at all points equidistant from the coastlines of both States.

It is the most widely accepted method in the international community although there are variations in particularly complex coastlines.

In the case of Guyana and Suriname, whose coastlines are relatively regular, it produces a line that runs in a north-easterly direction from the coast; and Guyana has been guided by it consistently.

Suriname has argued for a boundary line that is more northerly; one that would therefore enlarge Suriname’s maritime area.

They argued that the boundary line between Guyana’s and Suriname’s territorial waters that was fixed in 1936 along a 10 degree North line for a distance of only 3 miles, because of considerations of the channel in the mouth of the Corentyne River, should be extended along the same 10 degree axis beyond the 3 mile limit previously agreed all the way to the 200-mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zones claimed by both Guyana and Suriname.

The Tribunal has rejected this argument, and in the area beyond 3 miles from the shore it has drawn the boundary in a more north-easterly direction for the remaining 197 miles, as Guyana had requested, using the principle of equidistance as its basic guide. That principle was enshrined in the law of Guyana since 1977 – in our Maritime Boundaries Act; and has always guided our conduct.

So, on Core Issue 3, Guyana has achieved its objectives
As to Core Issue 4: (Guyana’s sovereignty to the resources of the sea-bed). The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes that, in its Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf as delimited under the Convention, Guyana has ‘sovereign rights’ of exploration and exploitation of the resources of the sea-bed and sub-soil of the Zone, and of the waters above them.

The Exclusive Economic Zone runs outwards from Guyana’s territorial sea up to a distance of 200 miles and is bounded on the lateral side with Suriname by the maritime boundary that the Tribunal has established.

Guyana’s sovereign rights to explore and exploit the hydrocarbon resources within the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf, once contested by Suriname, are now settled on the basis of the Tribunal’s Award.

So, on Core Issue 4, Guyana has achieved its objectives.
Core Issue 5: (Return of Guyana’s licensees to the disputed area.) The Tribunal’s Award has made it possible for CGX and other licensees to resume their petroleum exploration activities on Guyana’s side of the equidistance line, which as of today constitutes the definitive lawful and internationally recognised boundary between Guyana and Suriname.

The Tribunal has stated clearly that “Guyana now has undisputed title to the area” where the CGX rig was exploring for oil before it was forcibly evicted by the Surinamese military forces. In fact, that area lies a full 15 kilometres to the west of the boundary established by the Arbitral Tribunal, and is therefore well within Guyana’s waters.

The Tribunal’s Award is effective immediately, and Guyana looks forward to the prompt and successful resumption of petroleum exploration activities in these waters.

So on Core Issue 5, Guyana’s objectives have been achieved.
Core Issue 6: (Guyana-Suriname relations going forward). As I explained when I announced the filing of Guyana’s Claim on February 25, 2004, Guyana saw the proceedings before the Tribunal ‘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’.

Throughout the proceedings, Guyana conducted itself in that manner, and now that they are ended we look to the future as a new era of cooperation with Suriname, both within CARICOM and bilaterally. Both Guyana and Suriname are pledged and obligated by international law to accept and respect the Tribunal’s Award.

I have already explained how satisfied Guyana is with the Award on every one of the Core Issues before the Tribunal. I have deliberately not spoken of ‘winners and losers’; that would not be appropriate, because in a very important sense both Guyana and Suriname are winners - for having participated responsibly and peacefully in this historic process, and for having emerged with a common maritime border that puts an end to this longstanding source of tension between our two great countries.

The great achievement of the Award is to open up before Guyana and Suriname the prospect of practical harmonious cooperation in their economic development and in their relations as good neighbours. I have already conveyed these sentiments to President Venetiaan.

So, on Core Issue 6, Guyana has achieved its objectives, and both Guyana and Suriname have prevailed.
It remains for me to thank Guyana’s Legal Team whose members have worked with commitment and professionalism over the last three and a half years to make today’s result possible: to our Co-Agents Sir Shridath Ramphal, Mr. Paul Reichler of the Foley Hoag law firm in Washington, and Professor Payam Akhavan of McGill University in Montreal.

I also want to thank Professor Philippe Sands of University College, London and Professor Nico Schrijver of Leiden University in the Netherlands, and our Cartographic experts Dr. Galo Carrera and Mr. Scott Edmonds.

I commend, too, Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Minister Rudy Insanally and his officers who worked tirelessly in support of our Legal Team.

And special thanks are due to Guyana’s Licensee, CGX, for its patience and support over the years it has taken to see this matter through to today’s satisfying completion.

Finally, I offer the appreciation of the Government and people of Guyana to the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, Judge Dolliver Nelson, and to each of the four other distinguished Members of the Tribunal, for the erudition and justice of their Award, and to the Secretariat of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, for their professional, balanced and extremely efficient performance throughout these historic proceedings.

My fellow Guyanese - this has been a great day for Guyana. Now it remains for us to lay the foundation for a long future of harmonious relations and practical cooperation with our brothers and sisters in Suriname - to whom, on your behalf, I extend the hand of friendship.”

Tribunal award preserves 93% of CGX’s Corentyne Licence
CGX Energy Inc in a statement following the UN Tribunal on the Law of the Sea decision on the Guyana/Suriname border dispute said it is pleased with this development and noted that the award preserves 93% of its Corentyne Licence.

“Looking forward, if an offshore discovery is made in either Guyana or Suriname, it could lead to many more throughout the basin. Significant employment, infrastrucuture and service sector opportuities willevolve to support the dynamic exploration and development will follow. The combined resources of both countries will be required to support the evolution of a new petroleum in the Guyana/Suriname basin,” CGX noted.

CGX holds an interest in four Production Sharing Licences from the Government of Guyana, covering 8.7 million acres onshore.

Other companies holding licences in the area of overlapping border claims are Maxus Guyana Ltd, a subsidiary of Repsol YPF and Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd.
   
   
Thank You For Visiting Guyanachronicle.com ...... Guyana's premier online paper......Do come again..........
   
   
Top | Home | News | Editorial | Features | Courts | Letters | Sports | Archives CONTACT: Webmaster | Editor-in-Chief | Sunday Editor | Sports Editor | General Manager | Editorial | Advertising |
   
Click here to access Raddison Suites Homepage

Copyright GNNL June 2007 - Designed, Developed and Maintained by GN

Guyana vindicated by UN Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ruling
Finally, the long-awaited ruling on the Guyana/Suriname maritime border dispute has been declared and it is very favourable to Guyana as it has been awarded two-thirds of the disputed area, and very importantly it is the part where the water is shallow.

Perhaps this is another example of where the old adages of “good things come to those who wait” and “patience is virtue” have been proved to be true.

Also another extremely positive outcome of the Tribunal’s ruling is that the area from which CGX was forcibly ejected by the Surinamese army belongs to Guyana.

All Guyana must be ecstatic at this historic outcome as it gives a sigh of relief and a renewed chance to exploit our maritime resources and push the developmental process forward.

Our legal team which included Sir Shridath Ramphal, Professor Payam Akhavan and Paul Reichler must be commended for successfully articulating our position. Their dedication and persistence were remarkable and in the end all Guyana won.

Guyana’s case was pursued based on the principle of equidistance--a method of establishing an equitable maritime boundary between neighbouring states and is the most widely accepted method in the international community although there are variations in particularly complex coast lines.

However, Guyanese should not see this as a triumph over our eastern neighbour and fellow CARICOM state but instead should use the Tribunal’s ruling as a stepping stone to strengthening and deepening their cooperation and forge closer ties.

President Bharrat Jagdeo in his address to the nation yesterday alluded to this.

“The resolution of this dispute, which is now final and binding on both parties, will allow Guyana and Suriname to put the controversy behind them, and to proceed to cooperate as good neighbours on a wide range of issues,” he declared.

This, indeed, demonstrates the magnanimity and statesmanship of our Head of State.

He added: “When I say that on all these central issues Guyana’s interests and objectives are met, I do not mean to be triumphalist. That, in any event, would not be a proper gesture for our country to adopt. In fact, the Award is in the interest of both countries and the wider Caribbean.”

There is also an important lesson to be learnt from this maritime border dispute, and that is whenever such differences exist between neighbours there should not be resort to the use of force and all avenues of a bilateral settlement exhausted because in this case both countries suffered.

It took three and a half years to have this matter settled during which time all exploration of potential natural resources ceased, hence economic development was hindered.

In fact Guyana, had offered its neighbour a 50/50 partnership development of the disputed area which it bluntly refused to the benefit of neither party.

However, now that the dust has settled it is time to get back to basics and move swiftly towards exploration of potential petroleum resources.

The door is now reopened for The Canadian-based company, CGX, to return to its oil exploration which was stopped by the use of force. And the door is also open for other companies to do the same.

If exploration results in a favourable outcome with respect to having a feasible quantity of oil reserves, this could blend in perfectly with the US$500M proposed Crab Island oil refinery venture.

But for now all Guyana should feel proud that we now legally have what was always ours.

[img]http://71.18.97.185/cms/data/images/24/Betwist%20gebied%20SUR%20-%20GUY%202.jpg[/img]

Bron: De Ware Tijd
21-09-2007

Zo ziet de verdeling uit van het maritiem gebied, zoals die door het Arbitrage Tribunaal inzake de VN Conventie over de rechten van de zee (UNCLOS) is verdeeld onder Suriname en Guyana.

Suriname krijgt het rechterdeel groot 17.871 vierkante kilometer (6.900 vierkante mijl) en Guyana het linkerdeel van 33.152 vierkante kilometer (12.800 vierkante mijl).  Het tribunaal bevestigde verder dat de gehele Corantijnrivier van Suriname is.
------------------------------------------

Als iemand begrijpt waar die 49% en 51% op slaan dan mag die dat zeggen !!

Laatst bewerkt door Jason (2007-09-21 15:40:26)

Henky,
Ik ben geen geoloog. Ik ken een paar uit olie industrie. Dit is een useless discussie volgens hun. Als een ader doorloopt kan je altijd van elkaar "jatten".
Misschien is het zo dat die oliebel in Guyanees deel ligt en beetje 2 mijlen in SME. Door net naast grens te boren kan SME gewoon eruit pompen. Bij 12 mijl hadden de Guyana het wel gehouden en Suriname had niks.Dit geldt natuurlijk ook omgekeerd, waarvan jij bent uitgegaan.
Als er blijkt dat er een bron is dat zowel in SME als GUY ligt zullen er weer nader afspraken gemaakt moeten worden.
Zoniet, degene met grootste pomp krijgt het meeste.

VB schreef:

Jason,
Waar heb je de cijfers vandaan? Alles is afhankelijk hoe iemand het heeft geconverteerd. Misschien heeft iemand het verkeerd omgerekend met gewone mijlen.
We hebben over zeemijlen (nautical miles) dus 1 nm = 1.852 km. Verwarring kan hierin liggen.

VB,
Dit bericht komt van De Ware Tijd online, zoals vermeld.
Misschien is er een vergissing gemaakt met landmijlen en zeemijlen maar dan kom ik nog niet op een verdeling van 49% en 51%.
Ik ga er overigens vanuit dat het betwist (zee)gebied staat voor 100%.

Of is het alleen maar om zand in de ogen te gooien van de vluchtige lezer ?
Die zich alleen kort door plaatjes laat informeren.

Laatst bewerkt door Jason (2007-09-21 16:14:20)

Jason,
Sorry, dacht bronvermelding voor het kaart gold.

Rambo,
Helemaal mee eens. Dat opgefokt doen is gewoon gelul. Wat je hebt moet goed je koesteren. Verdomme, ze laten het goud wegvloeien, erger vind ik milieu schade.

Betwist gebied, het verhaal is dat linkse rivier geen Corantijn heet, vervolgens zijn er twee methoden: als de hoofdrivier (Corantijn) van SME is dan is het rivier dat de meeste water in Corantijn in brengt ook van SME. Er is andere methode die ik niet meer kan herinneren. Ik heb
op school geleerd (in SME) dat elk methode nadeel heeft voor SME.
Bij eentje raak je Guyanees kant kwijt en bij ander de Frans Guyanese kant.
Wie het weet mag hierover meer uitwijden. Graag zelfs!

Je kan je neerleggen bij allerlei technische argumenten en wat gangbaar is bij de vaststelling van de maritieme grens, maar wat de essentie is is de wijze waarop de voorbereiding en de verdediging is aangepakt.
Hoe beter voorbereid je een zaak voorlegt hoe meer kans je maakt op succes en dat is de essentie.

Het valt me op dat Surinamers, zij die in verouderde paradigmas denken, gauw tevreden zijn met antwoorden die passen binnen een bepaald kennisniveau of bepaalde percepties. Vervolgens is voor hen de case af. Alles wat eventueel anders had kunnen zijn wagen zij zich liever niet aan, daarvoor moet er namelijk een beroep gedaan worden op hun strijdbaarheid en moeten  bepaalde competenties aanwezig zijn.Zoals we weten is vooral de oude garde daar niet mee behept.
Men heeft geen weet van onderhandelingstechnieken, diplomatisch optreden, conceptueel denken, netwerken, internationale betrekkingen beheren, pragmatisch handelen, enz enz.

Dus als de 12mijlszone wereldwijd wordt gehanteerd dan zal dat wel zo zijn. Of als de rechters op basis van wat er geldt in maritieme kwesties een oordeel uitspreken, dan zal dat wel zo zijn en dan dienen wij ons daar bij neer te leggen volgens deze groep.

Maar wat in deze zaak ter discussie staat is  de voorbereiding van de zaak en de wijze waarop de zaak door enkele partijloyalisten is aangepakt.

Het grote verlies is het feit dat deze regering wederom deskundigen die met deze zaak bezig waren aan een kant heeft geschoven en eigenhandig met een paar geldwolven dit voor Suriname zeer eminent economisch belang is gaan verdedigen bij een tribunaal terewijl men eerder heeft geadviseerd om dit te vermijden.

Nu verwijt men Wijdenbosch dat hij in eerste intantie niet met zoveel geknetter cgx had moeten verwijderen. Volgens de pantoffelhelden van Suriname had guyana dan niet naar Itlos gegaan. Maar daarom  juist  hadden mannen als wijdenbosch ervoor gepleit om de zaak verder nationaal op te lossen en met all hands on deck en door alle nationale krachten te bundelen de zaak aan te vechten op de reeds in geslagen weg.
Men wilde dit op ander niveau oplossen, namelijk in Caricom verband. De staatshoofden van de verschillende landen erbij betrekken had guyana in een dusdanige positie gebracht dat het niet zover hoefde te komen dat men naar het tribunaal zou gaan. Een land voor het itlos slepen is makkelijker maar als meerdere landen zich hadden bemoeid ermee was dat voor Guyana al een obstakel meer geweest om naar het tribunaal te gaan. Op diplomatiek niveau kan je namelijk als je goed lobbiet veel gedaan krijgen. Maar we weten wat Suriname inmiddels voorstelt op diplomatiek niveau en internationale betrekkingen. Dus daar wringt de schoen.

De wijze waarop men zich erbij neerlegt is wederom om het eigen falen te maskeren. ''We moeten tevreden zijn en niet hebzuchtig zijn"" zegt een staatshoofd dan aan zijn volk. Houdt hen vervolgens voor dat we gewonnen hebben net als guyana. Ja we hebben gewonnen op het gebied wat sowieso al van ons was en niet interessant was voor Guyana maar we hebben verloren wat Guyana begeerde.

Elke case valt of staat met een goede verdediging en deskundige voorbereiding.
We kunnen dus concluderen dat er wederom bewezen is dat onze leiders van dit moment zoals in alle andere zaken zulke nitwits zijn dat ze alles maar dan ook alles kwijt raken met de wijze waarop zij schijnen te onderhandelen. Geen enkele zaak het economisch belang van suriname betreffende is de laatste jaren in suriname met de nodige kunde benaderd en dus succesvol geweest voor Suriname."

Dit is een nationale ramp en toch wil men het volk , conform de oude heersers, laten geloven dat alles goed komt en dat we tevreden moeten zijn.

Laatst bewerkt door Sally (2007-09-21 19:09:46)