THE GUYANA-SURINAM BOUNDARY DISPUTE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000700070014-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 1, 2012
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: June 24, 1966
• Content Type: MEMO

LI I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5 11
e_lee4eirld;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH
RES-14, June.24, 1966
?To The Acting Secretary
Through: S/S
From INR - Thomas L. Hughes (I
Subject: The Guyana-Surinam Boundary Disp
This paper is a geographic assessment of the Guyana-Surinam boundary
dispute,. including conflicting territorial claims, but excluding internal
political, actors It is prepared at the request of the Bureau of European
Affair's.
ABSTRACT
Prior to Guyana's independence, no international act was ever signed
formally delimiting a boundary between Surinam and what was then British
Guiana. The disputants, however, have accepted the left bank of the COurantyne
River as the boundary for approximately 200 miles southward from the coast.
What is in dispute involves the principal affluent of this river south to the
Brazilian frontier. Geographic evidence supports the .Netherlands' 'claim for
the New River, while historical and legal precedents substantiate the British'
and Guyanese position favoring the Kutari River. The Guyanese claim suggests
a firmer base in fact and law.
There are unconfirmed reports which indicate a willingness in Guyana. to
explore the possibilities of exchanging most of the disputed territory: for
electricity produced by Surinam's Kabelebo aluminum project or a change in
the Courantyne section of the boundary from the left bank to a channel in
in the river. This action would permit Guyana to use the river for navigation
and fishing. Thus, there is a basis for settlement.
n7ENT-14,,,WN0 FOREIGN DISSEM
GROUP 3
Downgrnod at 12; year
intervlc; not
automatically deolassifisd
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
g &rat, 41'1114ant F
R [71,1(2,17 F
GUYANA-SURINAM
BOUNDARY
DISPUTE
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
SURINAM
AwarabaLLL
....kunana
New Poor
Bow Como
?
?V;irt-
STATUTE MILES
10 5 0 10 2p 30 40
NAM. AMO IDOUNDAell, .1tPht11.11,001614
Met NOT NECaSIM1411.11 Al/THOP/ITAINIVII
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
58?
57? W
INN
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Historical Background
No international treaty, protocol or other agreement was signed delimiting
a specific:boundary between Guyana and Surinam before the former's independence.
In 1799, hoWever, the local governors of Berbice (Guyana) and Guiana (Surinam)
apparently agreed that the Courantyne River formed the dividing line between
the two territories. From 1831, the home governments of the Netherlands and
of Great Britain,also accepted this river as the boundary upstream from its
month for a'distance of approximately 200 miles. Some reservations were made
as to the _Specific stream which formed its principal source. The boundary at
this date was also agreed to be the high-tide mark on the west, or left, bank
thus allocating the entire river to the Dutch colony of Surinam..
? On the basis of explorations by Schomburgk in 1843, the headwater df the
Courantyne was generally-accepted for many years to be the Kutari (Koetari,.
Coeroeni, or Curuni) River. The discovery of the New River in 1871? 'however,
weakened this agreement. This river, situated to the west of the KUtai,
was eventually found to have approximately 75 percent greater flow than
the Kutari. As a result, the Dutch slowly began to claim that the New.
River was the principal affluent of the Courantyne. However, the British
retained their original position with regard to the Kutari. Involved in the
dispute is a triangular-shaped region of approximately 15,000 square
kilometers (5,800 square,miles) in extent. It is bounded on the east by
the Kutari River, on the West by the New River, and on the south by Brazil.
The territory is virtually uninhabited, heavily forested) and possesses no
known mineral deposits.
The earliest mention of the dispute is found in the 19th century
but the major problem is approximately 30 years old. The Dutch position that
the New River-was the definite source of the Courantyne hardened. The -
British Government, for historical reasons, refused to relinquish the'
territory which it had administered for so long. The Netherlands and the
United Kingdom governments in 1939, after approximately five years of
discussion, prepared a draft treaty to eliminate the boundary dispute
Paragraph I of the draft treaty stated:
(3) The river named by Schomburgk the River Kutari
shall be considered to constitute the upper reaches of
the River Courantyne, and the boundary shall follow. ?
the left bank of the principal course of the Kutari.
However, the outbreak of the war postponed any immediate action on the treaty
and it was never signed.
After the war, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was radically reorganized.
The former colonies became "associated" entities within the Netherlands realm
. and the home government was bound to hear all local opinions on actions
which affected the overseas area. The territorial government of Surinam
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
- 2 -
objected.to any agreement with Britain which did not consider the New River
to be the western boundary of Surinam. In turn the Netherlands GovernMent
has been reluctant to disregard the stated wishes Of the local government.
On May 5, 1965 the Staten of Surinam renamed the New River as the
Boven Corantijn, or Upper Courantyne, River. The United Kingdom Government.
protested this action only to draw the reply:
"The Staten of Surinam,
considering, .
that the United. Kingdom of Great Britain have the intention
of granting independence to British Guiana, at any rate that
negotiations to that end will be held in the near future:
that it is Customary that the boundaries of such future
independent territory be defined at the time of the granting
of independence:
that the frontier between Surinam and British Guiana is
established as of old:
that, the upper reaches of the Courantyne were rightly
renamed Upper-Courantyne Moven Corantijn") by the Government,
by Territorial Decree of 5th May, 1965 (g.b. 1965, No. 45).
that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
have protested against this; ,
, that the Staten, representing the entire people of Surinam,
are firmly Convinced that the Government were fully, entitled to
act, as they did;
that any possible fixation of the boundaries of British
Guiana disregarding the sovereign rights of Surinam omits
territory will be considered an unlawful act.
DECIDE:
to Call upon the Government to do everything within their power
to prevent any tampering whatsoever with the sovereign rights of the
country and its territery, and proceed with the order of the day.
Adopted on October 7, 1965.
The Merits of Each Side
:The British-Guyanese case is based upon continuous, undisturbed, and?
peaCeful occupation of the disputed territory since the United Kingdom assumed
control over. Guiana in the early 19th century. It ie rather difficult to
dispute this. type Of prescriptive evidence. The position is further supported
by the. unsigned, but negotiated treaty of 1939 which delimited the boundary
according to the United Kingdom claimed line.
In contrast, the Dutch position derives from the fact that the New
-River carries abVV-.7-5" percent ,_1,2450'than the Kutari and hence should
be considered the ? ncipa tributary or affluent of the Courantyne. However,
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
CONFIDENTIAL/ NO FOREIGN DISSEM
- 3..
there is no agreement among the boundary experts as to what constitutes
this illusive item. As Holdich) the famous British Geographer, stated
... How are we to reckon up with the principal affluent? Is it the
longest, or the widest, or the one which carries most water? Does it not
occur to you that the solution of such a problem is almost hopeless?"
? In its favor) the New River is definitely the longer of the two and it
also carries more water. It is not possible, however, to determine on the
basis of locally available maps if the New River is wider than the Kutari.
Thus most, if not all) of the geographic evidence supports the Netherlands
position that the New River is the principal affluent.
Is a Solution Possible?
Reports from Surinam and Guyana indicate that both sides wish to resolve
the controversy. '
There, are unconfirmed reports that Guyana may be willing to consider
negotiating an exchange of the disputed territory, or part of it, for half of
the Courantyne River, In the south, the compromise boundary most mentioned
has been the line of the New and Oronoque rivers. This frontier would
cede' approximatelytwo-thirds of the disputed territory to Surinam.. In -
exchange) the northern boundary should be shifted from the-westbankto the
-median line of the river: Guyana should receive either 'a half ot the
Courantyne with rights of navigation or that part of the river west of the
main navigation channel. The latter would guarantee navigation rights. In
view of the nature of the river, the former alternative would probably be ?
preferable. However) a detailed survey of the river would be necessary in
either case, for the allbeation of the many islands.
This change of boundary in the Courantyne would also eliminate certain
problems currently faced by Guyana. The Courantyne represents the only
logical means of transportation into the interior of eastern Guiana. As the
border now exists Guyanese ships run the risk of being taken in tow by
Surinamese authorities. Guyanese natives would also be able to fish in the
river, gaining a potential source of scarce protein for their, diets.
Another possibility for settlement involves the excess production' of
electricity from the Kabelebo development in Surinam. Guyana officials have
'mentioned they would be willing to discuss an exchange of the territory for
,dpproximately 50 percent of the power generated.
In either case, compromise solutions exist if the dispute can be kept
in a relatively minor key. Should nationalistic chords be struck, however)
a solution to the boundary problem will be difficult to attain.
CONADENTIAI/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014.-5
,
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000700070014-5