The campaign in relation to Venezuela’s preposterous referendum on Essequibo begins on Monday, and will end two days before it is held on December 3rd. According to the electoral authorities 20,694,124 Venezuelan citizens will be eligible to participate, that is to say, 20,694,124 people who bar a small number of more recent migrants, have no connection with the territory concerned, and whose forebears had none either. Over the centuries, they were not born there or built homes there, or cultivated crops there, or fished in waters there or after death were buried there. This is a fantasy claim which politicians over several generations have sold to the population as a ‘right’.
The claim has been rumbling on since 1962, flaring up periodically. On this occasion President Nicolás Maduro has suggested it is all about Guyana “violating international law” by granting oil exploration licences “in areas that have always belonged to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” He went on to warn all companies which intended to enter “Venezuelan waters or undelimited waters illegally … Venezuela does not recognize any licence from Guyana …”
His problem is that a segment of the population – no one knows how large it is – does not believe that this is the real reason for the referendum. They think that this and the tensions which are being generated are all connected to the election coming up, possibly in the second half of 2024. With the Venezuelan economy in dire straits, Caracas has been desperate for the US to lift sanctions, so it would improve before voters went to the polls. But Washington has exacted a price for that, and in a deal signed in Barbados last month Mr Maduro agreed with the opposition to release political and US prisoners and allow international observers at the election. (Five have been released so far.) In response the US among other things, has lifted sanctions on oil, gas and gold – for six months in the case of oil and gas ‒ but will reimpose them if the Venezuelan government does not adhere to the conditions which have been negotiated.
The matter of opposition candidates currently banned from standing is not so clear-cut, the agreement stating that the parties will promote the “authorisation” of all presidential candidates and political parties “as long as they meet the requirements to participate in the presidential election, consistent with the procedures provided under Venezuelan law”. The President of the National Assembly has put a very narrow interpretation on this, but if his reading is applied in practice it might not be acceptable to the Americans who could review the sanctions arrangements again.
As it is, the combined opposition, or the Unitary Platform, as it is called, held a primary recently, which was not sanctioned by the electoral authorities, and María Corina Machado won in a landslide. She even did well in districts which usually vote for the governing party. Ms Machado, however, is banned from participating in the election and there is no evidence so far the government will lift the ban, although the Barbados agreement acknowledges the right of each party to choose its candidate for the elections in accordance with constitutional and other legal provisions. President Maduro’s good faith is in question, however, since the primary is now being investigated for fraud by the electoral authorities.
One of the two agreements signed in Barbados includes a provision which binds both the government and opposition to backing Venezuela’s position in its controversy with Guyana. This is the second time this clause has been included in agreements between the two sides, which apart from being inappropriate for a deal of this kind, is disquieting for this country. Most of the news agencies did not bother to mention it at all, while where Ms Machado is concerned, she is known in this country as taking a very hard line on border issues.
That said, the Unitary Platform seems in no doubt that this is not about the Essequibo claim at all, but rather about the election, and it has issued flyers which read roughly in translation:
“Don’t be fooled
“Fraud Alert
“The referendum on the Essequibo does not have
“Any validity for the Guyanese and English authorities
“It will serve to cheat [swing] the presidential elections in favour of the Chavismo party
“Don’t vote in the referendum”
Mr Maduro has expressed himself suitably incensed, accusing the Unitary Platform, which he describes as the “far right” of sabotaging the referendum. They were, he said, “incorrigible” and “anti-patriotic”, and had violated the agreements which they had signed in Barbados. This is presumably a reference to the combined stance on the controversy agreed to there. He went on to say that the referendum would have a ‘nationalist integrating concept’ and there would be a flyer showing the “complete” map of Venezuela, “with our Essequibo,” and the five questions in the referendum. While this will not be the only tool in Miraflores’ box of tricks, it is very difficult to say from Guyana’s vantage point whether the opposition will be able to persuade a substantial number of voters to stay home.
The combined opposition are not the only ones raising their voices against the referendum in the neighbouring state, and the objections do not come from citizens who disagree with Venezuela’s general stance on the controversy. They will not, however, have the same level of influence that the Unitary Platform might enjoy.
They include an NGO dealing with security which was mentioned in an earlier column, and the Grupo Avila, which is described as an informal group of diplomats, political analysts, university professors and researchers in the fields of international relations and social sciences.
Their position is that Venezuela’s territorial integrity is enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution and its defence lies with the state. It is therefore inadmissible to consult citizens on the matter. The territorial controversy concerns all Venezuelans, and must be resolved by peaceful means as established by international law and reflected in the UN Charter as provided for in the 1966 Geneva Agreement. The group adverts to the fact that the controversy is before the ICJ, and this is where the state should argue its case in defence of the interests of the nation.
They also describe the referendum as “useless” and totally out of place, and say that it could be “disadvantageous to the country’s interests in the ongoing judicial process and outside of it.” They therefore consider that the consultative referendum should be revoked, and that the government should appear before the ICJ to defend Venezuela’s position.
They are not the only ones to observe that the territorial integrity of Venezuela is defined in the Constitution, or that Venezuela’s position in the process before the ICJ is being affected in a serious way. Victor Rodríguez Cedeño, a columnist wrote that the victory of María Corina Machado had “provoked a dangerous despair in the regime.” Among other things this was revealed with the call for a referendum, “an initiative that reflects the absolute lack of seriousness of an irresponsible regime that, in its determination to stay in power and to distract attention from the political reality that is adverse to it as never before, puts the interests of the Republic at risk.”
He too calls for the referendum to be revoked, and deems the conduct of internal politics in a way which compromises the interest of the country and the stability of the subregion, as “absolutely irresponsible and condemnable.”
From Guyana’s point of view the opinion expressed by former Ambassador to Guyana, Sadio Garavini di Turno, will be of greater interest. The older generation will remember that in 1984 he lost an eye when confronting a bandit who had broken into his residence here at night. He has always had an interest in the controversy, and had written about it even before he was posted here. He no longer contributes in the press, but in a social media post he called the referendum “useless” and “harmful to the interests of Venezuela”.
The ICJ, he said, with or without the presence of Venezuela, would follow the process “and in a few years would issue its ruling, which is mandatory and unappealable.” Furthermore, it was likely that subsequent to its judgement it would also have to intervene in delimiting marine areas. As for giving Essequibans citizenship, he called it unreal. “[I]t is ridiculous to think that the Essequibans, who live in the world’s fastest growing economy, could be interested in the citizenship of a country in the midst of a socioeconomic disaster and from which, in just a few years, more than 7 million inhabitants [have left], 35,000 of which [are] in Guyana itself.
He ended with the words: “In my opinion, the referendum is a manoeuvre to distract public attention from the enormous socioeconomic failure, in view of the announced 2024 elections, by raising the nationalist flag. Furthermore, it is also about forgetting the irresponsible and very unprofessional handling of the controversy during these two decades, which has led us to the ICJ, the scenario preferred by Guyana since 1966. Now, the responsible thing is to prepare ourselves with the support of the best national and international experts, to defend at the ICJ, our position that the 1899 award is null.”
It is highly unlikely that the Venezuelan government will revoke the consultative referendum. Now that the Unitary Platform has called for people to boycott the vote, it will increase the nationalist decibel level coming from the government. It would be utter humiliation for President Maduro if the turn-out was low – although he would be unlikely to admit it, even if it was. (Still, there are unofficial methods for gauging turn-out.) From Guyana’s point of view, however, we can probably expect a ratcheting up of the tension between now and December 3rd, with all the accompanying intimidatory actions that Caracas is so prone to inflict on us.
