Guyana–Venezuela border issue driven by geopolitics and wealth

Dec 19, 2023 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

In this season of good tidings, the recent truce between Guyana and Venezuela bodes well for all. Guyanese and other regional supporters who back Guyana in finding a peaceful solution to the current conflict can now breathe a sigh of relief, albeit temporarily.

Venezuela’s recent actions have caused local and regional jitters. The ‘consultative referendum’ of December 3 has given Maduro ammunition to resort to unilateral measures to ‘resolve’ the controversy, should he wish to do so, contrary to international law as well as the recent ICJ order. Some commentators seethe referendum as a blank check to Maduro which he can at any time, at his discretion, initiate or have any kind of border clash of a military nature in the Essequibo territory.

An article by Professor Vasciannein the Jamaica Observer of December 10, as well as Arato’s review of Winston Anderson’s article in the American Journal of International Law (2022) aptly and amply outlined and discussed the international law principles and the functioning of the International Court in such matters as the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy.  For the benefit of readers, this presentation gives a brief account of the geopolitical and wealth considerations that have instigated and fueled the dispute.

It should be clear, however, that this border controversy, first raised in 1841, was settled by the arbitration award of 1899. Ironically, the United States (US) is supporting Guyana today. They were the driving force in the 1890s forcing Britain to settle the border dispute with Venezuela. The US almost went to war with Britain forviolating theirunilateral 1823 Monroe Doctrine, according to which, European powers were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest.

The Dutch had ceded the colonies to the British in 1814 but the treaty did not define a western boundary. The British commissioned Robert Schomburgk, a surveyor and naturalist, to delineate that boundary. The 1835 survey resulted in the Schomburgk Line, a boundary that effectively claimed an additional 30,000 square miles for Guiana. The 1899 arbitration hearing focused on the Schomburgk Line and the occupation and control of the territory stretching from east of the Orinoco to west of the Essequibo Rivers. During the oral arguments and cross positions at the Tribunal, Venezuela unsuccessfully tried to ride on the wings of the Spanish explorations and discovery of this part of the world for its title; Venezuela failed to demonstrate its occupation and control of the territory claimed or convincingly disproved occupation and control by the Dutch. On January 10, 1905, the British-Venezuelan Mixed Boundary Commission submitted a Report on the final delineation of the boundary, and a map of the entire border, both of which were accepted by Britain and Venezuela.

That said, why did Venezuela suddenly challenge the 1899 Award? Many of us would like to believe that it was instigated by the Mallet-Prevost memorandum of 1944 posthumously published in 1949. It is my firm conviction that the driving force was the United States’ geopolitical and economic concerns as well as Venezuela’s greed for wealth. While the Mallet-Prevost memorandum claims that the Award was a ‘deal’ brokered by Britain and Russia, the Venezuelan 1962 challenge to the 1899 Award cited two different reasons: (1) the ‘no Venezuelan judge on the arbitration panel’ and (2) the application of ‘prescription based on 50 years occupation led to its loss of territory’. It should be noted that Venezuela had almost two years from the signing of the Treaty of Arbitration to challenge the clause that stated the requirements of prescription for 50 years would suffice at the Arbitral hearing.

The timing of this claim raises several questions: Why did Venezuela remain silent through the years 1899 to 1962? Why were the claims not officially raised before 1962 given that the Mallet-Prevost memorandum was published in 1949? Venezuela has questioned the selection of judges for the 1899 Tribunal but there is nothing in the records to show its disapproval of any member of the Tribunal.  Further, Mallet-Prevost alleged that there was a “deal” between Great Britain and Russia but no one has been able to point out what Russia had gained. It behooves me to mention at this point that in January 1944, the same year the memorandum was supposedly written, Mallet-Prevost was decorated with Venezuela’s highest distinction, the Order of the Liberator. The timing of the memorandum and the honor award has left analysts pondering whether this decorative honor had influenced the penning of the memorandum or vice versa. Note too, that an article published in the 1950 issue of the American Journal of International Law pointed out several inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the said memorandum.

In light of these questions, it is reasonable to infer that there were other factors at play. Indeed, declassified documents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) revealed several pieces of information that can be attributed to the Venezuelan 1962 resurrected border claims. At that time, Guyana’s Premier, Cheddi Jagan’s socialist-Marxist ideology which began in the late 1940s became a major issue. The US determined in 1962 that Cheddi Jagan would not be desirable as the head of government in Guyana. Thus, the CIA was instructed to provide guidance and support to the opposition political parties, the People’s National Congress (PNC), and the United Force (UF) in the 1964 election campaign. Again in 1967, the CIA was instructed to support the PNC and the UF in the 1968 elections. It was also revealed that Prime Minister Forbes Burnham later received CIA funding of $5,000 per month with the understanding that the payments could be terminated if the PNC failed to make satisfactory progress in keeping Cheddi Jagan out of power.

It should be noted too, that the 1940s and 1950s saw huge American investments about 90 miles up the Orinoco River approximately 100 miles from the Guyana-Venezuela border. These conglomerates and multinationals were investing in various mineral ores such as iron, manganese, and gold, among others. With Marxixt-oriented Cheddi Jagan at the helm, Guyana was seen by the Kennedy Administration and the US as another ‘Cuba’ in the region and this would have been anemic to US interests. It should be clear that the US geopolitics and economic concerns, as was the case in the 1890s, were at play again in the 1960s.

Further, one of the factors that drove the initial dispute was the discovery of gold in the 1870s which led to a boom in British Guiana. As evidence, gold and other mineral wealth were mentioned by the Venezuelan team at the 1899 hearings. In addition, since the 1960s Venezuela has undermined any attempt by Guyana to attract investments in the Essequibo region. About 15 years ago there was a ‘gold shout,’ and indeed numerous prospectors flocked to Guyana and invested in mining activities. It led to a windfall for Guyana in terms of production and price. The discovery came as the world was entering a depression and investors sought rescue in gold. During that period, the price of gold moved from around US$380 to about US$1,800per ounce. At every opportunity and forum, Venezuela has mentioned the wealth of the Essequibo, the most recent being Guyana’s off-shore oil discovery. Many believe that this may have been the impetus for Venezuela’s most recent actions including the referendum.

Venezuela’s current agenda could mean only one thing: it has seen the ‘writing on the wall’ ie, the ICJ would rule in favor of Guyana. It was opined that the referendum may have signaled an intent to follow Russia’s example in Ukraine and invade Guyana. Indeed, Venezuela has taken steps by initiating policy and legislation to facilitate such actions. Lending credence to this assertion, an article in Forbes magazine on 16 November saw the referendum as a pivotal development, intentionally timed between concurrent crises in Ukraine and Israel to avoid the international spotlight. Some see it as a way of forcing the US to remove the embargo.

Notwithstanding the geopolitical and wealth-driven agendas, or whether it’s Maduro’s political gimmick to regain internal support or an international distraction to remove embargos, we are happy for the recent truce and look forward to the end of the impasse via a peaceful solution.

Sincerely,

Ronald Singh, LLM, MS

---

• Guyana, LLM, MS, Ronald Singh, Venezuela

---