FOLLOWING a recent suggestion by a Chinese official to engage Venezuela in “friendly consultations and negotiations”, Guyana’s adamant stance on the border issue is an unmistakable sign that the nation remains dedicated to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) process, and will not engage in anything outside of this. The recent action by the Chinese diplomat is ill-timed, and, in principle, misguided.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation was right to immediately and categorically reject this proposal, reaffirming that the only legitimate avenue of resolution is the ICJ, where the matter is already under active adjudication.
This is not a technicality. The roots of the border conflict date back to the 1899 Arbitral Award, a landmark ruling defining the border between Guyana and Venezuela, which was accepted by the international community for decades.
Venezuela’s attempts to invalidate this award and assert its claims, most recently in the guise of sham elections for an alleged “Guayana Esequiba State” within Guyana’s sovereign territory, are not acts of goodwill but flagrant violations of international law and the sovereignty of Guyana.

Demands for “friendly negotiations” disregard the fact that Venezuela has consistently sabotaged trust, and ratcheted up tensions, including by threatening Guyana’s economic development and security.
The role of the ICJ is not only warranted but necessary to guarantee a just, rules-based resolution that enforces the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force.
To enable simultaneous negotiations outside the Court would only be to erode the ICJ’s jurisdiction, and to reward Venezuela’s disregard for international norms.

Guyana’s position is also supported by major international actors, including the United States and the Organisation of American States (OAS), who have made abundantly clear their support for Guyana.
The Argyle Declaration of December 2023 binds Guyana and Venezuela to shun actions that will inflame tension, an action already in breach by Venezuela’s actions to take steps unilaterally. Platitude concerning “amicable means” is hollow when there is one side which is taking steps to breach agreements and vitiate the peace.

Guyana’s insistence on the ICJ process is not stubbornness; it is the commitment to principle concerning international order.
The reluctance on the part of the government to be tempted into side negotiations is in the protection of its legal rights and national sovereignty. Guyana has to remain vigilant and resolute more than ever now.
Any move to short-circuit the ICJ, no matter how benevolent the intentions, would risk giving legitimacy to aggression, and establishing a dangerous precedent for small states everywhere. Guyana is correct to say “no” to diversion, and “yes” to justice. The border controversy will be resolved in The Hague, not in the backrooms of diplomacy.