IN recent times, the longstanding territorial controversy between Venezuela and Guyana has escalated, bringing to light Venezuela’s unjust claims over the Essequibo region. It is crucial to set the record straight and emphasise the historical, legal, and diplomatic foundations that safeguard Guyana’s territorial integrity.

Guyana, a nation of humble size and population, has found itself at the centre of a controversy fuelled by Venezuela’s desire to lay claim to the Essequibo, a region rich in resources, including valuable offshore oil and gas deposits. This territorial ambition has been exacerbated by the economic challenges faced by Venezuela, prompting the Maduro government to seek control over Guyana’s land and maritime wealth.

The roots of this conflict extend back over a century when the boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela were settled through the Treaty of Washington in 1897. The subsequent International Tribunal of Arbitration’s Award in 1899 delineated the borders, a decision that was deemed fair and satisfactory by both parties, as well as the international community.

For six decades, successive Venezuelan administrations respected and honoured these borders. However, in 1962, when Guyana pursued independence, Venezuela suddenly challenged the legitimacy of the Arbitral Award, casting doubt on the fairness of the process. This shift in stance was prompted by geopolitical considerations and a fear of a Communist-led government under Dr. Cheddi Jagan, Guyana’s Prime Minister at the time.

Notably, the United States played a role behind closed doors in discouraging Guyana’s independence under a Communist government. Despite this, the boundaries settled by the 1899 Award were demarcated, recognised internationally, and reaffirmed by Venezuela, Brazil, and British Guiana in 1931.

The 1966 Geneva Agreement, signed on the eve of Guyana’s independence, was intended to guarantee the maintenance of borders. However, Venezuela’s unwarranted claims persisted, leading to a protracted series of discussions, a moratorium, and decades of UN good offices, all of which failed to find a resolution.

In 2014, following the Agreement’s provisions, Guyana sought the intervention of the United Nations Secretary-General, leading to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) being chosen as the means to settle the controversy. Guyana filed its application to the ICJ in 2018, seeking a fair and just resolution.

The ICJ, having ruled that it can adjudicate on the merits of Guyana’s case, now stands as the arbiter of this controversy. Despite Venezuela’s objection, the court’s judgment will be binding on both parties, reaffirming the sanctity of international law and the rule of treaties.

However, in a troubling turn of events, President Maduro has announced a controversial referendum proposing the annexation of Essequibo by force, a move condemned by the international community, including the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organisation of American States (OAS).

Guyana appeals to the international community to uphold justice and protect its sovereignty against Venezuela’s aggressive territorial claims. As Sir Shridath Ramphal aptly puts it, Venezuela’s claim is rooted in “greed, nurtured by falsity and fable, and maintained by political demagoguery.”

Guyana’s plea for justice and adherence to international law must prevail, and the majority of nations that have condemned Venezuela’s actions stand as a testament to the importance of upholding the principles of fairness and justice on the global stage.