HABITUAL VENEZUELAN FALSIFICATIONS

BEFORE we begin to point out the main falsifications which Venezuelan spokespersons habitually employ in their narrative on the controversy, whereby they are trying to seize Guyana’s territory, we would like to remind readers of the outdated and backward psychological paradigm in which Venezuela operates.

Unlike Guyana, Venezuela still lives in the 19th century, the world of Napoleon and Simon Bolivar, when states with powerful armies could seize parts of other countries. Such behaviour, which was criminal banditry, is today recognised for what it is, and the international community, international organisations and international law reject it and treat it as unacceptable.

Such behaviour is inherently unjust and disturbs international peace and stability, and the nations of the world now condemn it and increasingly take action to curb it.

Venezuela operates within this 19th-century paradigm and stands isolated from modern world opinion. Over the years, the Venezuelan “reasons” which have been given for their desire to seize Guyana’s territory vary and may even contradict, but they are all anchored in this 19th century paradigm, and so also are the various falsifications and misinformation they use in their narratives. Below, we analyse a few of the most habitual of these falsifications:

First Falsification: Venezuela had nothing to do with the Arbitral Award and had rejected it
i. That Venezuela never accepted the 1899 Arbitral Award, which prescribed the border between Venezuela and Guyana
ii. That Venezuela played no part whatsoever in the Arbitration
iii. That the Arbitration was forced on Venezuela by Britain and USA for their own purposes
iv. That Venezuela had no part whatsoever in the Treaty of Washington of 1897, which arranged the Arbitration, which made the Award which, by Article XIII, was “a full, perfect and final settlement.”

The Truth:
In the latter half of the 19th century, the newly independent Venezuela showed expansionist tendencies and wished to extend its territory well beyond the Orinoco, westwards. British Guiana had just had its boundary demarcated by the German geographer Robert Schomburgk in the 1840s and Venezuela raised the cry that Schomburgk had taken in their territory in British Guiana. At that time, the US was reviving the Monroe Doctrine, intent on being the paramount power in the Americas. Venezuela accordingly secured them as patrons in their claims against Britain. Britain was forced by the US on behalf of Venezuela to agree to an Arbitration and this was enshrined in the Treaty of Washington, 1897.

Jose Andrade signed the Treaty on behalf of the President of Venezuela and it was ratified by the Venezuelan Congress with its President, Joaquin Crespo, describing it as “an effort of intelligence and goodwill worthy of praise and thanks from us.” Venezuela insisted that the Treaty be an ‘Arbitration Treaty’ and its demand was accepted.

Venezuela appointed the Chief Justice of the United States its Arbitrator. Article XIII of the Award describes it as being “a full, perfect and final settlement of all the questions referred to the Arbitrators.” The Venezuelan Ambassador to Britain described the Award as “Greatly, indeed, did justice shine forth”. In Caracas, there was much jubilation and postage stamps were issued to mark the event.

Venezuela was fully involved in all aspects of the Treaty setting up the Arbitral Tribunal and fully accepted its Award which established the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

Second Falsification: That Venezuela had no part in demarcating the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

The Truth:
As soon as the Arbitral Award was made, Venezuela demanded that the boundaries be demarcated. Accordingly, Britain and Venezuela established a Boundary Commission, and Venezuelan and British surveyors worked between 1900 and 1905 to demarcate the boundary. Therefore, Venezuela demarcated the boundary, and its name appears on every boundary panel. The boundary established by the commission was fully accepted as the international border between Guyana and Venezuela, and this was so for over 60 years until Britain was ready to give Guyana its independence in the 1960s, and Venezuela was opposing that independence.

Third Falsification: That the Geneva Agreement of 1966 replaced the 1899 Arbitral Award and called for a practical solution to the problem and ignored any involvement of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The Truth:
Venezuela was opposing Guyana’s independence and the British worked out the Geneva Agreement, whereby the controversy was to be settled within four years. With that Agreement, Venezuela lifted her opposition to Guyana being granted its independence, which was conferred in May 1966. The Agreement in no way moved away from the 1899 Award, and the World Court acknowledged this. It specified that if no progress was made, the controversy should be referred to the UN Secretary-General, who would recommend a vehicle for a solution.
Before this was done, the parties decided to use the Good Offices process of dialogue under UN auspices, which went on for nearly three decades without fruit and eventually, both parties withdrew from it, leaving the controversy to be referred to the UN Secretary-General, who recommended the ICJ as the vehicle for solution which Guyana accepted, but Venezuela did not, though they participated in the hearings of that Court.

Accordingly, the 1966 Geneva Agreement never replaced the 1899 Award and it did prescribe the part UN Secretary-General was to play in recommending a vehicle for solution.

Fourth Falsification: Venezuela is calling for Guyana to abandon its case at the ICJ and engage in bilateral dialogue as, such will result in a peaceful and constructive outcome.
The Truth:
At the ICJ, Guyana and Venezuela are on the same and equal ground and the Court could rule in favour of either party. Venezuela assumes that with bilateral dialogue, they, with their huge army, great wealth, population of tens of millions and international contacts, will always be able to overpower weak and small Guyana, unlike at the ICJ where the decision may go in Guyana’s favour. Guyana’s reply to this call for dialogue is that they are willing to engage in dialogue in all matters such as economic, social and, cultural and other cooperation, but the ICJ must be allowed to adjudicate on the case before it. Guyana was engaged in dialogue with Venezuela for nearly 30 years with no results, during which time Venezuela erupted into threats, violence and economic sabotage against Guyana. The call for dialogue by Venezuela is propagandistic and meaningless when one remembers the failed dialogue for nearly 30 years and Venezuela’s threats and attacks during that time.

Fifth Falsification:
Venezuelan spokespersons always omit some essential part of the Truth in their narratives. For example, they do not mention the 1899 Arbitration, which had fixed the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela and which Venezuela had accepted for over 60 years. When they call for dialogue, they do not mention that dialogue was tried for nearly 30 years under the Good Offices process and proved fruitless and that during that time they continually erupted in threats and violence against Guyana.

This controversy arose in the 1960s as a Cold War ploy to delay Guyana’s independence, and it should have been allowed to fade away in due course. Instead, Venezuelan governments used it to indoctrinate their population since they were overcome with greed for Guyana’s natural resources and this is seen in all their videos where they stress Essequibo’s riches and no principle or other reason whatsoever for their claim. Now that Guyana has become an oil-rich country, their greed has become sharper, and this has resulted in the present strident threats to invade and seize Guyana’s territory militarily, as manifested in their infamous referendum or plebiscite. With a population constantly stirred up in expectation of the seizure of Guyana’s great riches, Venezuelan governments, and in particular the present one, find themselves riding a tiger’s back and can’t dismount.