Venezuela’s attempt to annex the Essequibo region, which currently constitutes about three-quarters of Guyana’s land area, raises a number of issues of historical and current significance.
One may question how far back in history is it legitimate or feasible to go to claim that an injustice has been perpetrated against a territory and its people and to seek redress. Venezuela maintains that the 1899 arbitration agreement which settled the boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela a century and a quarter ago was obtained against the interests of Venezuela.
Two centuries ago, Trinidad was part of the captaincy of Venezuela and was forcibly taken over from the Spanish Empire by the British. Should representations therefore be made today for Trinidad to be returned to the jurisdiction of Venezuela?
Over three centuries ago, Spanish soldiers invaded the territory of Venezuela and brutally killed and decimated the majority of the indigenous tribes in their own ancestral land and claimed the territory for the Spanish Crown. Should therefore the current descendants of these indigenous tribes lay claim to Venezuela as belonging to them, as their ancestors were massacred or exiled by the marauding Spaniards—the far distant ancestors of the current Venezuelan population of Spanish origin?
The 1899 arbitration agreement, followed by the Treaty of 1905, were endorsed by the then-government of Venezuela. Is it legitimate for a current government to repudiate an agreement acceded to by a predecessor? If so, how much will such a precedent create international disorder, distrust, animosity and conflict?
Then there is the question of the validity in international law to annex land under the jurisdiction of another state on the basis of the approval of such a venture by an internal referendum.
If international law is rejected as a means of settling disputes between countries, then the alternative is to resort to force, which appears to be the intent of the Maduro government as recently indicated by military exercises close to the Guyana border. Venezuela has flatly rejected the application of international law and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in resolving the current dispute.
The insistence by Venezuela on bilateral negotiations with Guyana can only have one objective, and that is that Guyana cedes all or a significant part of the Essequibo to Venezuela. It is inconceivable that bilateral negotiations would be intended by Venezuela to confirm the existing borders.
Furthermore, such negotiations, if agreed to, will be conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation where one party has a far larger population, economy and military than the other and has confirmed its aggressive intentions.
The Argyle Declaration, though perhaps well-intentioned by its promoters, is as much a public relations exercise as anything else. Maduro wants to be seen as reasonable and conciliatory, but behind this gesture is an ominous intent.
If the declaration is intended to promote peace and non-aggression, then the organisers may have asked Maduro, as an act of good faith, to withdraw or even suspend his decree to appoint a governor for the Essequibo who happens to be a general, to build military infrastructure there, to direct Venezuelan oil companies to conduct exploration and drilling in the disputed territory, to issue ultimatums to oil companies currently engaged in the maritime areas of Essequibo to leave, and to grant Venezuelan residency to the current inhabitants of Essequibo as if their preferences for state allegiance are of no significance.
None of the above has been conceded by Maduro.
Guyanese people do not have pleasant memories of the attitude of Commonwealth Caribbean countries to them. The majority of the latter turned a blind eye or even supported the suffocating dictatorship and open vote-rigging of Forbes Burnham. Guyanese fleeing from this oppression were treated with disdain and contempt by the immigration authorities of many Caribbean countries.
Now there is equivocation with respect to Venezuela’s aggression towards Guyana as many of these countries are mindful of their self-interest in obtaining natural gas from Venezuela or oil imports at concessionary prices.
The Prime Minister of T&T has approvingly invoked the doctrine espoused by Henry Kissinger that countries do not have friends but interests. This echoes Churchill’s dictum many decades ago that countries do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies but permanent interests. Adherence to principle is not a concern.
In light of the above stance, it would be advisable for Guyana not to rely too much on the support of Caricom “friends”. Guyana may have better luck with the unequivocal backing of the “imperialists” of North America and Western Europe.
Then, there is the phenomenon of unrequited greed. Venezuela possesses the largest oil reserves in the world, which it is unable to exploit for the benefit of its people for numerous reasons.
Then there was the indiscriminate nationalisation of foreign oil companies. The exodus of professional and skilled workers became a flood. The country experienced extreme lawlessness, lack of democracy, oppression of the majority, pervasive mismanagement and corruption and the alleged enrichment of government officials from the narcotics trade. Venezuela was regarded as a corrupt, mismanaged, narco-state long before US sanctions were imposed. The situation forced an estimated 25% to 30% of its population to flee the country.
Yet Maduro wants possession and control over more oil and gas deposits in Essequibo and its maritime area. How will these be exploited and for whose benefit is another question.
Trevor Sudama
San Fernando