The resurfacing of a boundary dispute between Venezuela and Guyana that dates back over a century gets ready to degenerate into war, prompting the Caribbean Community (Caricom) to reiterate the necessity for governments to uphold international law.
In response to events that have rekindled tensions in the conflict, the regional body stated in a statement, “Caricom earnestly hopes that Venezuela is not raising the prospect of using force or military means to get its own way in this controversy over territory. After all, it has been the long-standing position of Latin American and Caribbean counties, including Venezuela, that our region must remain a zone of peace.”
- Advertisement -
Caricom expressed its worries just hours after the Guyanese Government and Opposition concurred that “no effort should be spared to resist” Venezuela’s “persistent endeavors to undermine Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and denounced what they called Venezuela’s “flagrant violation of the rule of law.”
The statement released by President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali and Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton stated that “the protection of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the State must be subserved by a vigorous and comprehensive public relations program and a proactive and robust diplomatic effort aimed at blunting Venezuelan propaganda and misinformation as they relate to the territorial controversy generally, and the Geneva Agreement in particular”.
The news of the Venezuelan government’s placing two questions on a December 3 referendum ballot—if answered in the affirmative—that would allow Venezuela to annex the potentially oil-rich Essequibo territory—over which both nations have disputed ownership since the late 1800s—prompted the Guyanese response.
The long-running border dispute stemmed from Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 Arbitral Award on the border between Venezuela and British Guiana was invalid. In an effort to resolve the dispute, the UN secretary general carried out Good Offices between 1990 and 2017 under the parameters of the 1966 Geneva Agreement between the two nations.
Most of the 160,000 square kilometer Essequibo area, which forms the boundary between the two countries, is covered in thick forest. It makes up about two-thirds of the whole land area of Guyana.
Following the discovery of crude oil resources off the coast of the area by US oil company ExxonMobil in 2015, Venezuela revived its claim to the territory.
Critics have seen the referendum as an attempt by the Venezuelan government to gauge public support for it ahead of the country’s elections in 2019 and to persuade foreign tribunals to grant it complete sovereignty over the disputed area.
Venezuela challenged the legitimacy of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided in April that it had jurisdiction over the matter.
Following the release of an oil tender by Guyana last month, Venezuela protested, claiming that the offshore regions are disputed and that the firms given the resources will not be permitted to explore them.
Caricom reiterated, pointing to the questions on the December 3 vote, that “international law strictly prohibits the government of one State from unilaterally seizing, annexing or incorporating the territory of another state. An affirmative vote as aforesaid opens the door to the possible violation of this fundamental tenet of international law”.
Caricom stated that it has observed that the language of the two referendum questions that have been authorized calls on Venezuela to execute its position on the matter “by all means, according to/with the law” to be affirmed. This gives reasonable individuals room to assume that “by all means” involves using force or going to war, according to the geographical grouping.
Caricom stressed that the vote that Venezuela is proposing is exclusively local in nature and has no legality, impact, or standing in international law with regard to this matter. Nonetheless, the region’s “peace, tranquillity, security, and more” are likely to be undermined by its overall effect.
Reiterating its support for the legal system, the 15-member alliance expressed hopes that Venezuela will participate fully in the process before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whose “final decision will ensure a resolution that is peaceful, equitable, and in accordance with international law.”
The queries, according to Ali and Norton, openly flout international law norms and breach the integrity of treaties. They said that in particular, question three relates to Venezuela’s “historical position” of rejecting the International Court of Justice’s authority to settle territorial disputes. The two men also drew attention to the fact that question five asks for the consent of the Venezuelan people to establish a new state that would include the Essequibo region of Guyana and include “the granting of citizenship and Venezuelan identity card in accordance with the Geneva Agreement and international law.”
The Guyanese officials declared, “This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the Geneva Agreement and a clear violation of international law.”
