President Dr. Irfaan Ali’s recent response to Venezuela’s provocations shows the strong leadership we need at this moment. As Caracas continues its push to legitimise its false claim to Guyana’s Essequibo region, the President has made it clear that silence or ambiguity will not be mistaken for weakness.
His letter to CARICOM Chairman, Prime Minister Terrance Drew of St. Kitts and Nevis, dated April 28, 2026, reflected the voice of a nation fed up with its territorial integrity being threatened, one audacious map at a time.
The immediate cause was Venezuela’s Acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, who publicly displayed a map that included Guyana’s Essequibo as Venezuelan territory during meetings with CARICOM member states. As President Ali accurately pointed out, this issue goes beyond symbolism.
It is a deliberate and provocative claim that Guyana has firmly rejected, and which is currently before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a final decision. Venezuela cannot try to normalise the situation through symbols, maps, legislation, or official displays. President Ali deserves praise for stating this so clearly to the leaders in the region.
At the centre of this controversy is a legal fact that Venezuela has tried to obscure for decades: The land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela was definitively settled by the Arbitral Award on October 3, 1899. This was not just any decision.
Both Venezuela and Great Britain agreed in the Treaty of Washington of 1897 to consider the Tribunal’s decision as a complete and final resolution of all issues presented, and the Award was unanimous. For over 60 years after its issuance, Venezuela respected this settlement, consistently acknowledging the 1899 Award as binding.
It was only in 1962, just before Guyana’s independence, and when the potential of the Essequibo’s natural resources became clearer, that Venezuela attempted to reject the Award before the United Nations General Assembly. The timing of this action reveals its motives.
This reversal was motivated by territorial ambition, not by the discovery of some hidden legal defect. President Ali is right to assert that the 1899 Award remains the legal basis for Guyana’s western boundary. Finality is not something that can be renegotiated simply because a neighbour regrets a previous decision.
Venezuela’s ongoing misrepresentation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement adds to the issue. Caracas has falsely claimed that referring the controversy to the ICJ violates the Agreement, and that Guyana somehow forced the matter before the Court without Venezuela’s agreement.
This is a legal falsehood. The Geneva Agreement was never meant to hold Guyana’s independence hostage, or to freeze the disagreement indefinitely. It clearly aimed to create a Mixed Commission to find a solution; if that did not succeed, the process would go through the mechanisms outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter, including judicial resolution.
After many years of Good Offices efforts that led to no solution, the UN Secretary-General, acting under his authority in Article IV (2) of the Agreement, chose judicial resolution via the ICJ.
Guyana followed this path correctly, and in December 2020, the ICJ confirmed its jurisdiction after hearing and rejecting Venezuela’s objections. When Venezuela claims that the Geneva Agreement prevents access to the ICJ, it is not making a legitimate legal argument. It is ignoring the Court’s decision, and using misinterpretation to uphold an untenable claim. In reality, the Geneva Agreement was meant to lead to legal resolution, not to protect attempts at revisionism.
What makes Venezuela’s recent actions even more offensive is the context. Rodríguez’s map display did not take place in Caracas; it happened within CARICOM, a community that has consistently recognised Guyana’s sovereignty and condemned Venezuela’s aggressive actions, from false “elections” in Essequibo to ignoring ICJ orders.
Using CARICOM platforms to promote territorial claims against a member state is not diplomatic. It betrays the community’s core principles of respect for sovereignty, the Rule of Law, and regional unity.
President Ali’s warning to his CARICOM partners that ignoring such behaviour risks being seen as acceptance or tolerance, is not just justified but essential. Remaining silent in the face of such provocation equates to complicity. In addressing this issue, the President is defending not only Guyana’s borders, but also the integrity of the entire regional effort.
Earlier this year, while speaking at the Guyana Defence Force’s Annual Officers’ Conference, President Ali captured Guyana’s stance: “Guyana must not blink. Preparedness is not provocation, readiness is not aggression, vigilance is not hostility. They are simply the duties of a sovereign State that takes itself seriously.”
This statement highlights the incorrect comparison some make between Guyana’s defensive actions and Venezuela’s aggressive provocations. Guyana is seeking justice through the ICJ, the designated forum per the Geneva Agreement pathway and the UN Secretary-General.
It is strengthening its defence, not to intimidate but to deter. It insists on the importance of the 1899 Award, not out of stubbornness, but out of respect for legal order in international relations.
As the ICJ prepares for hearings, and, ultimately, a binding judgement, Venezuela will likely continue its symbolic annexation tactics, using maps in regional gatherings, theatrical moves in Caracas, and making exaggerated claims of sovereignty over territory it has never legally controlled.
Guyana relies on the solid foundation of the 1899 Arbitral Award, the Geneva Agreement as it should be understood, and the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
It also enjoys strong support from CARICOM, the broader international community, and the principles of the Rule of Law. In light of Venezuela’s provocations, the worst thing Guyana could do is back down. President Ali has made it clear that it will not.