In the history of quarrels about borders, the Guyana situation appears quite unusual in that one state is trying to overthrow an arbitral award that has stood for over a century. And it is attempting to do so based upon its dissatisfaction with what it was awarded by an arbitration process that it insisted upon and freely agreed to, and upon a flimsy posthumous claim!
In a most interesting recent study, Krista E Wiegand argued that enduring territorial controversies such as ours are particularly problematic because they cause continual bilateral, regional, and international security problems. Even when armed conflict does not occur, the ‘negative peace’ of an enduring dispute is quite distinct from the ‘positive peace’ between states that have no disputes. On the contrary, peace between former border adversaries provides many benefits for the parties, for example helping with ‘the emergence of democratic regimes and increased trade’ (Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy and Settlement. (2011) University of Georgia Press).
Disputed territory is the primary factor influencing the likelihood of militarised interstate disputes and war, particularly in enduring rivalries and among developing countries. Of all interstate disputes, those over territory have tended to be the most likely to lead to armed conflict. What appears to be a minor dispute can easily flare up as political or social tensions in a claimant country provide the tinder by which an isolated dispute could become a serious international relations issue. ‘In the last two centuries, almost one-third of all territorial disputes have escalated to war, a much higher percentage than the universe of all international disputes. Territorial disputes are nearly twice as likely as other issues to escalate to interstate war’ (Ibid.).
Yet Wiegand argued that in our time, ‘Since acquiring territory through force is typically too costly and risky, peaceful resolution methods are the only feasible means by which the status quo can change.’ Since 1953, states have successfully resolved ninety-seven territorial disputes through bilateral negotiations, third-party mediation, arbitration or adjudication at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). But despite the clear benefits of settled territorial disputes, seventy-one territorial disputes are ongoing today, the vast majority of which have endured several decades.
Almost from the inception of this controversy Venezuela has sought to utilise forms of coercive diplomacy to compel Guyana to succumb to its demands. It has used militarised threats, the limited use of force and the passage of hostile laws, all of which have been intended to inflict serious damage to the peace, tranquility, and possible development of Guyana.
From the time of its modern claim in 1962, maps of Venezuela have included the Essequibo region of Guyana as a part of Venezuela. Generations of Venezuelans have now grown up believing Essequibo to be a legitimate part of their country and this only complicates the possibility of a resolution process.
In September 1966, Guyana reported that the Venezuelans had occupied and laid claim to Guyana’s half of the island of Ankoko, which lies in one of the border rivers. Venezuela has also interfered in the internal affairs of Guyana through the subversion of a number of Guyana’s indigenous Amerindian communities and contravened the Convention on the Law of the Sea, when on 9th July 1968, the President of Venezuela issued a decree purporting to annex as part of the territory of Venezuela, and to ‘assert a right to exercise sovereignty over a nine mile belt of sea extending to within three miles of the coast of Guyana and contiguous to Guyana’s territorial waters’ (Guyana/Venezuela Relations, 1968: 20 24).
Venezuela placed advertisements in the London Times warning investors away from the `disputed’ territory and urged the World Bank not to support a loan for the Upper-Mazaruni Hydro-Power Project, which the Guyana government was then attempting to build in the region. Venezuela also tried to prevent Guyana from becoming a member of the Organisation of American States, which it only succeeded in doing in 1991.
The process of warning off those wishing to invest in the Essequibo and many other minor infractions are ongoing. But more recently, we have the case in October 2013 of a Venezuela armed naval frigate entering Guyana waters and trailing and then forcing the seismic oil exploring vessel the RV Teknik Perdana to the Venezuelan island of Margarita, where it detained and charged members of its crew. This occurred only a few months after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro visited Guyana and committed his country to the United Nations Good Officer process.
Indeed, on the very day of Maduro’s visit, there was an intrusion at Eteringbang in Region Seven by Venezuelan soldiers and civilians, with the intention of restating Venezuela’s claim to Guyana’s territory. This led political analysts to claim that these incidents were attempts to embarrass the president, who was domestically politically weak. Indeed, subsequently, the Venezuelans made themselves relatively scarce when Guyana insisted upon urgent negotiations to resolve the problem.
Added to this, the Venezuelan government has objected to the US company Exxon exploring for oil in Guyana’s waters and since that company has discovered significant oil deposits that government’s exhortations have become even more shrill.
From Guyana’s standpoint, the straw that broke the camel’s back was in May 2015, when President Maduro issued a decree extending Venezuelan sovereignty over the 200 mile limit of Guyana’s territorial waters in the Atlantic Ocean off the Essequibo region. The decree, which affected the Exxon oil discovery, also purported to establish a marine zone and Venezuelan sovereignty over the waters of parts of the Caribbean and continental shelf, in effect compromising the sovereignty of some other countries of the region.
Indeed, regardless of the political conditions in Venezuela that have given rise to these kinds of approaches, they again bring to the fore Prime Minister Eric Williams’ warning of Venezuela’s regional imperialist designs (Williams, Eric (1975) The Threat to the Caribbean Community. (Port-of-Spain: People’s National Movement).
The Guyana government has argued that by it actions Venezuela has breached the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the Good Officer process and is a threat to regional and international peace. Notwithstanding periods of relative peace and cordial bilateral relations, it is obvious that the continued existence of the controversy, Venezuela’s perennial application of coercive diplomacy and the general trajectory of the present conciliation process have not served Guyana well. It is not then surprising that the present regime is hankering after a judicial solution. Let us hope it succeeds and that the promise of El Dorado becomes a reality for Guyana, its neighbours and the wider region.
