THE Venezuelan media and politicians have been keeping their aggressive claim to over two-thirds of Guyana’s territory alive.
From time to time, they deploy soldiers and armaments on the border with the threat of invasion.  Less than two years ago, their maps showed the Essequibo region separate from Guyana as “a zone of reclamation”;  now it is shown as a state of Venezuela and the Maduro government has actually appointed a Governor for the ‘state’!

This kind of demented gaucherie would have been considered comical in the 21st century, but Guyana has to take it very seriously since Venezuela lives in a world of the 18th and 19th centuries when states could acquire territory by aggression, once their armies were stronger than their neighbours.’  Examples of this are Prussia’s seizure of Silesia from Poland or Germany’s seizure of Schleswig/Holstein from Denmark, and the partitioning of Africa. The  main reason for this anachronistic state of mind is Venezuela’s devotion to the Bolivarian cult when Simon Bolivar, a quintessential 18th-century man,  went over South America after the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 carving countries out of the decaying Spanish Empire and the other reason is that Guyana, a militarily weak, though oil-rich country, offers a quick seizure by the Venezuelan armed forces which is hundreds of times stronger than Guyana’s.
Guyana, on the other hand, lives in the modern world, and this causes it to treat the Venezuelan threat as being resolvable by legal means. However, Guyana has to be constantly aware of  Venezuela’s anachronistic cast of mind.  Unfortunately, such a cast of minds takes a long time to change, and Venezuela can only be restrained from any adventurism by diplomacy.

The international community is committed to preserving the peace of the world, especially in South America.  Accordingly, the OAS, the Commonwealth, the United States, the United Kingdom, CARICOM  and many European Community countries are supportive of Guyana.   They are also supportive of Guyana because it is clear that Venezuela is the aggressor and Guyana is the victim.  They will restrain Venezuela until the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjudicates on the controversy.

We will briefly remind readers of the background of this controversy: in 1841, the British Government engaged the well-known German cartographer Robert Schombergk to demarcate British Guiana’s boundaries, which he successfully completed.  Venezuela then raised an objection, claiming that Schombergk had taken part of their territory.  The British did not accept Venezuela’s claim, and Venezuela then approached the United States for support, citing the Monroe Doctrine.  President Grover Cleveland, an anti-British personality, had even threatened war if Britain did not come to the table with Venezuela.  Venezuela, however, demanded a Treaty of Arbitration, resulting in the Treaty of Washington in 1897 between Venezuela and Britain.  Jose Andrade signed the treaty on behalf of Venezuela and it was ratified by the Venezuelan Congress.

The arbitrators consisted of five persons:two appointed by Venezuela, two appointed by Britain with a neutral Chairman.  Venezuela appointed the Chief Justice of the United States and an equally prominent American judge and Britain appointed two equally prominent British judges with De Maatens, a very respected and prominent Russian judge as Chairman.  The arbitrators scoured the archives of Spain, Holland, and Britain, conducted thorough deliberations, and made their award in 1899.  All parties accepted the award and the Venezuelans were particularly jubilant, even  printing postage stamps in honour of the award.

The Venezuelans were particularly pleased that the British lost their claim to the mouth of the Orinoco River.  The Venezuelans insisted that the boundary be demarcated with immediacy, and in 1900, a Joint Boundary Commission of British and Venezuelan surveyors went to work and made their final Report in 1905.  Venezuela further affirmed the boundary when, in 1921, Mount Roraima was identified as the meeting point of the boundaries of Brazil, Guyana and Venezuela.

In the 1960s, Britain was determined to withdraw from and give its Caribbean colonies, including British Guiana, their independence.   The successor independent Guyana Government was expected to be under the leadership of Dr Cheddi Jagan, a Marxist. The USA felt that Dr Jagan would link up with Cuba, a Communist state and a close ally of the  USSR  with whom the USA was in the throes of the Cold War.  The USA accordingly opposed the granting of Guiana’s independence, and Venezuela, then an American client state, in 1962 opposed Guiana’s independence. The justification proffered by Venezuela for its opposition was a posthumous letter written by Mallet-Prevost, one of the junior lawyers at the Arbitration, claiming that the decision was rigged in favour of Britain.

The veracity of Mallet-Prevost’s letter could not be proved, and  Venezuelan intellectual circles did not give much credence to it for 12 years after its publication.  Britain and  Venezuela, however, arrived at the Geneva Agreement of 1966, in which it was agreed that the controversy would be settled within four years. With the Geneva Agreement, Britain was free to grant Guyana its independence, which it did in May,1966.

Guyana and Venezuela decided to use the Good Offices Process under United Nations auspices, and if this failed, the UN Secretary General was tasked with choosing a mode of settlement which both parties would use.  After nearly 30 years, the controversy remained unsettled and both parties decided to withdraw from the Good Offices Process.  The controversy then reverted to the UN Secretary General and he chose the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to make the final decision on it.  Guyana immediately accepted the ICJ as the final arbitrator, but Venezuela challenged this, and the ICJ affirmed its capacity.  After Guyana and Venezuela made their final submissions, the Court will decide within a year.

Venezuela continues to make bellicose threats against Guyana and these compel Guyana to always be on the alert.