By Odeen IshmaelOn March 3, the Guyana government announced its intention to opt out of the United Nations GoodOdeen IshmaelOffices process—a mechanism anticipated to assist in resolving the renewed claim Venezuela made on a portion of the Essequibo region of Guyana.In explaining the country’s decision and its desire to request a judicial settlement, Foreign Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett pointed out that the Good Offices process yielded little results over the last past twenty-five years. She added that Guyana was examining other options while at the same time suggesting that Venezuela remained comfortable with the current process “because it suits their purpose – no movement.”These “other options” will eventually have to be decided by the UN Secretary General.According to Article 33 of the UN Charter, they include, in addition to “Good Offices,” the resort to mediation, facilitation,Wholesale Jerseys, dialogue processes, arbitration and judicial settlement. However, all, except judicial settlement, have already been tried.THE UN GOOD OFFICES PROCESSSince 1990, when Dr. Alister McIntyre was appointed as the UN special representative, the two countries have been obliged to keep within the ambit of the Good Offices process, which ended when the last special representative, Dr. Norman Girvan, died in April 2014.This decision by Guyana to inform the UN that it has opted to no longer participate in the Good Offices process will, no doubt, push the Secretary General to act. It was clear since early in 2014 that the Secretary General himself was becoming concerned that the process was going nowhere, since he has not bothered to name a new representative.This most recent development in the territorial controversy arose just after the Venezuelan foreign minister at the beginning of March objected to the exploratory drilling for oil by the American company, Exxon Mobil, in the concession granted by Guyana. Venezuela claimed that the area is its “territory” despite the fact that the drilling area is deep within Guyana’s maritime economic zone. In response, Guyana’s foreign affairs ministry stated that it requested the Venezuelan government to desist from taking any actions that could only result in hindering the development of Guyana.In a rebuttal, Venezuela in a communiqu? in mid-March, labeled as “unjust and false” claims that it was deliberately obstructing Guyana’s development and pointed to instances of collaboration and support between the two states as evidence to the contrary.At the same time, the communiqu? insisted that Venezuela remained committed to the Good Offices process “as an optimal and convenient methodology to assume bilateral and amicable, without the irritating interference of foreign factors, negotiations in order to achieve a practical and satisfactory solution for both sides.”Some observers feel that the Venezuelan objection arose because of the involvement of Exxon Mobil in the drilling at the time when the United States has imposed a series of political sanctions on Venezuela. Significantly, Venezuela was ordered by an international arbitration panel in October 2014 to pay Exxon Mobil $1.6 billion for the company’s oil assets nationalized in 2007.The Guyana government’s decision has received support across the national political spectrum, and wider afield from Caricom and Commonwealth governments. The former opposition spokesman on international affairs, Aubrey Norton, noted that little progress was recorded in the UN Good Offices process and proposed that the government and opposition should set up a joint committee to come up with a way forward. He insisted that territorial issues should transcend partisan political interest.And the former foreign minister,Jordan Shoes For Sale, Shridath Ramphal, who was the country’s top negotiator of the Protocol of Port of Spain in 1970, said that Venezuela has “abused” the Good Offices process while it lasted. He explained that all other modes of settlement such as arbitration were already explored and the only available option remaining would be a judicial settlement.THE GENESIS OF THE CONTROVERSYThe boundary between Venezuela and Guyana (formerly British Guiana) was settled in 1899 by an international arbitration tribunal which, in its award regarded as a “full, perfect and final settlement,” described in detail the boundary between the two countries. Venezuela willingly accepted this decision and fully honoured it. However, in 1944, forty-five years after the arbitral award, Severo Mallet-Prevost, one of the four lawyers who had appeared for Venezuela before the arbitration tribunal, wrote a memorandum in which, for the first time, he attacked the award on the alleged grounds that it was the result of a political deal between Great Britain and Russia.This formed the basis of a claim the administration of President Romulo Betancourt, for