–Towards a solution by the ICJ

THE Venezuelan dispute has again surfaced in the media after President Dr. Irfaan Ali’s address to the United Nations, wherein he made reference to the dispute, and emphasised that Guyana had always been committed to settling the dispute peacefully, within the ambit of International Law.  Guyana’s position was endorsed by the United Nations and all the world’s countries.

On the other hand, Venezuela, an infinitely more powerful country than Guyana, both militarily and economically, is demanding that Guyana and Venezuela be placed in a ring, where Venezuela would not be constrained by International Law and morality, and could then terrorise Guyana by strident sabre rattling and threat of invasion.  Venezuela hopes to get its way by such means.

We will give a brief background of the Dispute:
In the last quarter of the 19th Century, the USA was gripped by an ultra-nationalist commitment to the Monroe Doctrine, whereby the USA would oppose any European power that attempted to establish new colonies in the Americas. Venezuela, who had claimed part of the British colony of British Guiana, felt it could exploit this American nationalism, and was able to enlist the USA as patron for its claim.  The USA thus took up Venezuela’s claim with Britain.

In the 1890s, relations between the US and Britain became very tense, to the point where there was even talk of war.  Tempers cooled, and Venezuela, the USA and Britain agreed, by way of the Treaty of Washington, in 1897, to have the dispute settled by arbitration.  Venezuela established an Arbitral Tribunal, while the USA and Britain chose the most eminent lawyers of the time to serve on it.  They all solemnly agreed that the award of the Tribunal would be “a full, perfect and final settlement of the Dispute”.

The Arbitral Tribunal went about its work, under the chairmanship of the very eminent Russian lawyer, Frederick Frommbold de Martens.  The archives of Spain, Holland and Britain were thoroughly searched and explored, and the Tribunal was able to make its award in 1899. British Guiana lost the Orinoco Delta and most of the present-day Venezuelan Province of Guayana.

It should be remembered that Sir Walter Raleigh, in his search for El Dorado, was the first European who visited this area in the 16th Century.  The Award confined British Guiana to its present boundaries.  The Tribunal’s deliberations and findings were published in several large volumes, copies of which are in the National Archives.

JUBILATION
The Venezuelans were jubilant that they had won a great victory, and this was reflected in the media of the time, and postage stamps were issued to celebrate the occasion. A joint Venezuelan/British team was appointed to demarcate the boundary in accordance with the Tribunal’s award, and this they completed in 1905, with the official map being issued on May 7, 1905.  The boundaries were accepted by Venezuela, Britain, the United States and internationally.

By 1960, it became clear to the world that Britain intended to withdraw from the colony and grant British Guiana its Independence.  Venezuela’s neighbour would now no longer be Britain, but a weak, fledgling country, and as such, Venezuela abandoned International Law, and claimed two-thirds of British Guiana’s territory.  The basis of Venezuela’s claim rested on the flimsy grounds of a posthumous letter from Severo Mallet-Prevost, one of the junior lawyers in the Tribunal, wherein he claimed the award was dishonestly made, impugning the integrity of the most eminent lawyers of the time.  In the norm, a letter like Mallet-Prevost’s would have been regarded as a discredited curiosity, but Venezuela was seeking a casus belli.

With this Venezuelan claim, Britain found itself not being able to grant Independence unless they had accepted that there was a dispute.  Accordingly, Britain, Venezuela and British Guiana recognised a dispute that should be settled peacefully in due course.  British Guiana was then able to be granted its Independence in May 1966.
It did not take long before Venezuela began making threats and other harassment on Guyana, and even seized Ankoko Island, part of Guyana’s territory.

GOOD OFFICES PROCESS
The parties were persuaded to have dialogue under United Nations auspices, and facilitators, Good Offices persons were appointed. But, after 30 years, no progress had been made.
Venezuela then discontinued the Good Offices help, and Guyana went back to the UN Secretary-General, a procedure Venezuela had agreed to when the original agreement was entered into.  The Secretary-General decided that the matter should be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a solution.

Venezuela claimed the Secretary-General had no such authority, and that the ICJ did not have such jurisdiction, but she was found to be incorrect on both issues.
Guyana took the matter to the ICJ on March 29, 2018, and Venezuela claimed the Court had no jurisdiction.  The Court made a judgement on December 18, 2020, rejecting Venezuela’s claim, and asserting its jurisdiction.  The ICJ will now decide, with final, binding effect on both parties, Guyana and Venezuela, whether the 1899 Arbitral Award establishing the international boundary between the two states was lawfully issued, and remains legally valid and permanently binding as a matter of International Law.

Recently, Mr. Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the US State Department, affirmed the US’ support for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.  The Commonwealth and the other States in the world support Mr. Nichols and the US’ position.  Venezuela, however, still maintains that the ICJ has no jurisdiction, and that the dispute must be settled bilaterally, though for the last 30 years, it has failed to be settled, and Venezuela kept up its aggression with threats of violence, and publishing notices in the international press deterring investors from investing in Guyana.

Venezuela still adheres to the 18th and 19th Century ethic, which permitted territorial acquisition by war and violence. This is completely rejected in the 20th and 21st Centuries, and International Law does not permit such aggression and acquisition.   It is believed that President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela was trying to bring his country into the ethos of the modern world, but died before he could.

Venezuelan politicians continue to be prisoners of the futility of this Border Dispute, have no elbow room, cannot get out of their entrapment in the world of the 19th Century, and cannot move into the modern world.  Part of the solution for emerging from this backwardness is the re-education of the schools and the population who were conditioned to believe that two-thirds of Guyana’s territory was Venezuela’s.  The judgement of the ICJ, in whatever way it goes, could also help to bring Venezuelans into the modern world.