In 11 days, large numbers of Venezuelans are expected to cast their votes in a referendum on the territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela that has been a source of contention between the neighbouring countries in South America for more than 100 years.
While the single political issue that has been referred to the population of Venezuela is the dispute between the countries, they are being asked to vote on five questions.
Among the questions Venezuelans are being asked is whether they agree with Venezuela's historical position of not recognising the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve the territorial controversy over Essequibo.
Venezuelans are also being asked to vote on whether they agree with the creation of the Guayana Esequiba state and with the proposition that the Guyanese citizens resident in the territory should be granted Venezuelan citizenship and identity cards.
The idea of asking the population of Venezuela not to recognise the ICJ is problematic. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and seems, therefore, to be an appropriate forum to settle territorial disputes between countries.
Instead of having the dispute settled finally by an international tribunal comprising eminent jurists, Venezuela appears to believe a resolution to the long-standing dispute can result from direct talks between Venezuela and Guyana.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro wrote to United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres earlier this month, asking him to use his good offices "to restart, with the urgency that this controversy merits, direct talks between Guyana and Venezuela with the aim of advancing towards a peaceful and beneficial understanding for both".
That letter suggests that, at some stage, direct talks between Guyana and Venezuela could possibly result in the former conceding the merits of the Venezuelan position and agreeing to give up its settled right to the Essequibo. In the absence of further detail, Venezuela's expectation that direct talks with Guyana would result in a favourable outcome for the Spanish-speaking country seems dangerously naïve, even fanciful.
Given Venezuela's decision to hold a referendum on this matter, direct talks between the parties, at this stage, are impractical.
But we agree with Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, when he said on Monday: "We all know that even in the darkest hour, T&T’s position was that if difficulties arise, the response ought to be dialogue, dialogue and dialogue.”
In making that comment, Dr Rowley was referring to the role that T&T played in maintaining its support, four years ago, for whoever was the occupant of the Miraflores Palace in Caracas, who then happened to be President Maduro, when others in the hemisphere, and even in this region, were pledging their support for Juan Guiado.
That decision by the Cabinet headed by Dr Rowley was completely appropriate in the context of international relations between and among states and was the approach adopted by the UN.
T&T's support for President Maduro "even in the darkest hour," along with this country's relationship with Venezuela on the development of the Dragon and Loran/Manatee natural gas fields, places Port-of-Spain in the unique position to act as an interlocutor, who would lower the temperature on both sides of the Essequibo river.
That is a role that seems tailor-made for Dr Rowley himself.