THE Guyana/Venezuela controversy will again shortly come up before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  In Guyana, most of the writings on the controversy have been of a historical and factual nature and this is a good thing, since the Guyanese public are not encouraged to move their attention into the realms of arguments and discussions where factual bases invariably become blurred.

In this offering, we will depart from this norm and try to answer two questions that many have been asking since the seizure of the two Guyanese fishing boats in Guyana’s territorial waters by a Venezuelan navy ship. The first question is, why is the Venezuelan public so convinced that they have a valid claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s territory and why their politicians are so bellicose and aggressive about this claim?  And the second question is, why did President Maduro of Venezuela choose this time to seize the boats when he knew he would alienate the Guyanese population and cause the international community to condemn or disapprove of his action, leaving Venezuela isolated internationally on the issue.

The answer to the first question began during the Cold War: At the beginning of the 1960s Britain had decided to withdraw from Guyana and grant the colony independence, but it was very likely that the Prime Minister of the newly independent state would be Dr Cheddi Jagan, an avowed Marxist.  U.S. Cold War interests tried to persuade Britain to delay Guyana’s independence, but all that Britain could promise was that she would hand over power to a non-Communist Prime Minister.  American Intelligence felt that this British offer needed further insurance and so they devised a plan whereby their client Venezuela would threaten to invade Guyana if there was any possibility of a Marxist government being installed in Guyana.

The 1899 Arbitral Award had settled the boundaries of Guyana and Venezuela and these boundaries were fully accepted by both parties and the International community.  One of the junior lawyers representing Venezuela at the arbitration, Mallet- Prevost, left a letter that was not to have been opened until after his death.  In that letter, he claimed that the Arbitral Award was the result of an arrangement between Britain and the Russian arbitrator to deprive Venezuela of its rights.  After more than half a century, Venezuela, based on Mallet-Prevost’s posthumous letter, now rejected the Arbitral Award and claimed two-thirds of Guyana’s territory.  Mallet-Prevost’s posthumous letter was the causus Venezuela used to threaten Guyana and this continued after the Cold War, the raison d’etre for the claim, had ended.

Most lawyers and historians who took any notice of Mallet-Prevost’s letter dismissed it as a historical curiosity or very flimsy evidence on which to attempt to upset a long-accepted Arbitral Award.  But the Venezuelan politicians and the Venezuelan public gave credence and importance to Mallet-Prevost’s posthumous letter, which would have been dismissed in the modern world.  But the Venezuelan politicians and public still live in the 19th century Napoleonic world where territorial conquests were regarded as acceptable and even heroic. In today’s world, this 19th-century ethic has been completely rejected.

The Guyana/Venezuela controversy has been an albatross around the necks of Venezuelan politicians, since they use it on each other and their public has them imprisoned by it.
The Venezuelan seizure of the two Guyanese fishing boats and President Maduro’s threatening words to Guyana was meant to create a national issue which the opposition has to support.  The opposition is thus brought under Maduro’s umbrella and is temporarily neutralised.

A decision by the ICJ would be in both countries’ interests.  It would remove a perpetual threat to Guyana and would free Venezuelan politicians from being imprisoned by the controversy and free their international relations from being bedevilled by it.