Nelson
Ramírez Torres
Respected
Mr. Darren Woods, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and CEO, of ExxonMobil
Corporation. Today, November 8, 2022, I am writing to
inform you and the directors of that corporation that the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela
will prevail in the lawsuit that the Cooperative Republic of Guyana introduced
against it in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), regarding the ownership
of the Essequibo territory and its maritime
area.
In
2018, Guyana sought to
attain the declaration of validity of the 1899 Arbitration Award (AA)
that granted said territory to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (UK).
I
am not a fortune teller, Mr. Woods; but I know the law, and, in this case, the
ICJ being made up of honest judges, icons of their countries' pride, I affirm
that the lawsuit will be won by Venezuela.
The
Essequibo and its 250
kilometers of coastline, from the mouth of the Essequibo
River to Punta de Playa, as well as the maritime area located to the north of
said territory —granted to you by Guyana, in concession for the
exploitation of hydrocarbons (Stabroek) — are the subject of
a judicial litigation since 2018; which means that
the ownership of said territory is under discussion; and that it is for the ICJ
to determine who is the owner.
The
intense diplomatic dispute began at the UN in 1962, with a
claim by Venezuela.
The legal controversy began in 1966, when the Geneva
Agreement (GA) was signed by the UK,
Venezuela and Guyana, agreeing to review the
AA, due to Venezuela's
claim that the AA is “null and void”.
ExxonMobil
requested and accepted concessions in areas of which Guyana cannot
dispose; because their ownership (sovereignty) is in dispute, and the
subject of litigation.
Considering
what ExxonMobil spends —exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons;
costs of Guyana's lawyers;
publicity campaign to position Guyana
as the owner of the territory, etc.— I assume that you, the board of
directors and the shareholders, are confident that Guyana will prevail in the lawsuit.
I can assure you that this premise, more than risky, is wrong; because the
lawsuit, I repeat, will be won by Venezuela.
I
don't know whether you realize that it is impossible for the ICJ to rule in
favor of Guyana.
Allow me to explain why:
1) The
AA that awarded the Essequibo to the UK is absolutely null and void: a) owing
to it being totally unsubstantiated; b) owing to abuse by the
referees; and c) owing to procedural fraud by the referees, in
combination with the UK. For the arbitrators it was impossible to substantiate
the AA, because there was no way to agree with the UK.
2) Guyana
(in its Instituting Proceedings) only invokes a right that does
not exist, because the jurisprudence of the Honduras-Nicaragua
case is not applicable to the Guyana-Venezuela case. Guyana lied to the ICJ by stating that the cases
are similar, when in truth they are not; among other reasons, because in the
case of Venezuela
there exists the GA. There is no legal formula, Mr. Woods, to establish an
“acquiescence” or “Estoppel” against Venezuela,
because the GA implicitly extinguished the right to a claim regarding the
attitude or acquiescence of Venezuela;
because the GA was agreed, precisely, to determine if the AA is null or valid;
a matter for the ICJ to decide.
3) Guyana falsified the facts, because it is
not true that from 1899 to 1966 (Guyana's independence) the UK and Guyana believed that the case was
resolved, and considered that the controversy had ended. It is not
true that, between 1899 and 1962, Venezuela
repeatedly expressed its unconditional acceptance of the validity of the AA.
Venezuela protested continuously from the moment it was made aware of the
unfortunate award; it never accepted it; to the point, that, in 1899, its
agent before the arbitral tribunal, JM Rojas, described the ruling as
"ridiculous and manifest injustice"; and Ignacio Andrade, president
of Venezuela, affirmed that “the award had restored to Venezuela only a part of
that of its territory that had been usurped”. Guyana conceals in its
claim that the GA defined the dispute, set its limits, and specified
the means to reject the validity of the AA. Guyana, through lies, intends
to demonstrate a status of acquiescence of Venezuela; for which purpose Guyana affirms
in the lawsuit that it was in 1962 when Venezuela changed its
position, seeking to attain that the ICJ look at the behavior of Venezuela as
it looked at that of Nicaragua; alleging that, for several years, Venezuela did
not object to the Award of the King of Spain. There is no evidence whatsoever
to justify that the Venezuelan rejection of the AA was a delayed one, since the
truth is that Venezuela brought up the evidence that caused the British to
approve the Geneva Agreement!, including Severo Mallet-Prevost's complaint.
Boldness
is essential to business success; but there are legal, ethical and moral
limits, so as not to incur savagery. Respect for the law is a course that bears
good fruit and allows companies to weather storms and emerge strong therefrom.
Scholars say, Mr. Woods, that the world is dying and that it is
imperative to return to the age of enlightenment. Do not forget the wise words
of Pope Benedict XVI:
“That which remains after suppressing
the truth is only a simple decision of ours and, therefore, arbitrary. If man
does not acknowlege the truth, he degrades himself; if things are only the
result of a particular or collective decision, man degrades himself”.
Please,
Mr. Woods, do not forget this: "For we can do nothing against the
truth; but for the truth."
Receive a
cordial greeting,
Sincerely,
nelsonramirez@hotmail.com
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario