The meeting between the presidents of Guyana and Venezuela, scheduled for today in St Vincent and the Grenadines, is the result of an agreement by the Caribbean Community (Caricom) Heads of Government following talks at a virtual meeting on Friday.
Following that meeting, Caricom urged Venezuela to respect the conservatory measures determined by the International Court of Justice in its December 1 ruling. The regional grouping also reiterated its commitment to the maintenance of the region as a zone of peace and the adherence to international law.
The Caricom statement then called for "a de-escalation of the conflict and for appropriate dialogue between the leaders of Venezuela and Guyana to ensure peaceful coexistence, the application and respect for international law and the avoidance of the use or threats of force."
The challenge in Caricom's position, as they head into today's meeting, is in determining what is the "appropriate dialogue between the leaders of Venezuela and Guyana" that will lead to "a de-escalation of the conflict."
The "conflict" between Venezuela and Guyana relates directly to the rejuvenation of the former's long-standing claim to the Essequibo, the holding of a consultative referendum in which one of the questions asked whether Venezuelans agreed to the establishment of a new state called Guayana Esequiba and comments by President Nicolas Maduro last week that his country intends to grant licences to exploit the region's resources.
As recently as Tuesday, in a four-page letter to St Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, Guyana's President Irfaan Ali reiterated that "the land boundary is not a matter for bilateral discussions" with his Venezuelan counterpart at today's meeting.
To neutral and fair-minded observers, taking a position not to discuss the matter that is at the heart of the conflict, is not likely to be viewed as "appropriate dialogue" that will lead to "a de-escalation of the conflict."
In the letter, President Ali also noted that the 1966 Geneva Agreement provided "several mechanisms for Guyana and Venezuela to resolve Venezuela's contention of the nullity and invalidity of the (1899) award by talks; failing which the (1966) agreement mandates the United Nations Secretary General to select a final means of settlement of the controversy."
It is noteworthy that one of the five questions in the recent referendum in Venezuela asked whether the citizens support the Geneva Agreement as "the only valid legal instrument to reach a practical and satisfactory solution" for the Essequibo region. Over 98 per cent of those voting approved of the 1966 decision.
The UN Secretary-General chose the ICJ to provide the final and conclusive judgment on the Essequibo matter because it was clear that 51 years of bilateral discussions had not and would not resolve the issue.
It can be argued, therefore, that Venezuela's support of the 1966 Geneva Agreement is, in effect, agreement that the ICJ should have the last word on the Essequibo.
It would certainly be a novel approach for President Ali to embrace the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which Venezuela has used as the centerpiece of its attempt to distance itself from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The two leaders also need to de-escalate their rhetoric and cool the temperature of their public utterances, as the first step in ensuring the peaceful coexistence called for by Caricom's latest statement on this issue.