By Greg Quinn
The greatest threat to Oil Dorado lies to the West. Guyana has had a troublesome neighbour in Venezuela for 125 years. The border dispute has heated up as Maduro tries to divert attention away from domestic problems. Greg Quinn argues that appeasement is the wrong way forward
Lessons from history
Following US pressure in favour of Venezuela (citing a claim that British actions violated the Monroe Doctrine) in 1897 the United Kingdom, the colonial power in British Guiana, agreed to an arbitral process (signing the Washington Treaty) to decide the border between the then British Guiana and Venezuela. With this Treaty both the UK and Venezuela agreed that the ultimate Arbitral Award in Paris would be a ‘full, perfect, and final settlement’ [my emphasis] of the border issue.
A group of five arbitrators – two from the UK, two from the US (representing Venezuela), and one from Russia – agreed an Arbitral Award in 1899 which delineated the border. (This was completed in 1905). In the process British Guiana actually gave up territory, for example, at the mouth of the Orinoco.
Whatever grumbling there may have been at the time Venezuela accepted the rule of international law and proceeded to incorporate the ruling into national law.
Prevost’s intervention from beyond the grave
All was generally fine until 1949 when a note written in 1944 by Severo Mallet-Prevost, official Secretary to the US-Venezuelan delegation at the arbitration, was published after his death. In this Prevost claimed (without evidence) that the 1899 Arbitral Award resulted from a political deal between the UK and Russia. He had surmised from the private behaviour of the judges that there had been a political deal between the UK and Russia. So confident was he in this view that he said his memorandum could not be published until after his death when he could not be questioned about it.
In 1962 (conveniently just as British Guiana was moving towards independence) Venezuela claimed once again that the 1899 Arbitral Award was ‘null and void’. This led to the February 1966 Geneva Agreement to ‘resolve the controversy over the frontier’ which agreed that a Mixed Commission would be established to seek satisfactory solutions to the controversy.
1966 and all that
As the still extant power the UK signed the 1966 Agreement but on the understanding that the soon to be independent Guyana would become the responsible party. Prime Minister Forbes Burnham also signed and the UK made clear to the soon to be independent Guyanese authorities what was being discussed. Relevant documents from the 1890s onwards were given to Guyana on independence.
It is also worth noting that in 1966 (soon after Guyana’s independence and clearly in an attempt to throw its weight around) Venezuela occupied all of Ankoko Island and the surrounding islands, quickly establishing military installations and an airstrip. This occurred despite the 1899 Arbitral Award deciding Ankoko should be split between British Guiana and Venezuela.
The following years saw Guyana and Venezuela go through a frankly fruitless process of discussion on Venezuelan claims. In the absence of any evidence from Venezuela to justify their claims Guyana, rightfully, stood firm. In 1990 the UN instituted a ‘Good Offices Process’ in an attempt to help both parties come to a resolution.
When first in office Hugo Chavez was no friend of Guyana and famously used a machete at a summit in Brasilia to underscore his claim over Essequibo. He subsequently mellowed, for reasons which are unclear to this day. Tensions eased until Maduro came to power and Venezuela once again brought the issue to the fore.
Ultimately the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, decided in January 2018 that the issue should be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where it is currently being deliberated on, even though Venezuela has argued that the Court has no jurisdiction.
Hotting up
On 3 December 2023 Venezuela held a sham ‘consultative referendum’. This consisted of five questions on: rejecting the 1899 Arbitral Award; making the 1966 Geneva Agreement the ‘only valid legal instrument’ for resolution of the matter; agreeing that Venezuela’s position of rejecting the involvement of the ICJ was correct; opposing Guyana’s ‘illegal’ use of resources in the maritime sphere (oil and gas); and on the creation of a new ‘Guayana-Esequiba’ state including granting Venezuelan citizenship to those living there.
Official turnout was 51 per cent (although many questioned this – even the Chief Prosecutor of Venezuela chipped in accusing opposition leaders of sabotaging the referendum and recommending many of them be arrested) and 96-98 per cent of voters supported the Venezuelan Government’s position. This ratcheted up tension between Guyana and Venezuela and led to some regional leaders (most notably Prime Minister Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines) pushing for talks between President Ali and Nicolas Maduro. These took place on 14 December in St Vincent and the Grenadines (facilitated by Gonsalves and Prime Minister Skerrit of Dominica as Chair of CARICOM) and led to the Argyle Declaration. Many applauded this. I was not one of them.
The Declaration saw both leaders agreeing (amongst other things) to: not threatening or using force directly or indirectly; committing to being good neighbours; avoiding escalation; establishing a joint Commission of Foreign Ministers; and meeting again within three months in Brazil. I understand why some think it was a good thing, but appeasing dictators never works out well and, I must admit, I don’t see what has been the benefit of this particular declaration for Guyana. The expected follow-up meeting (which should have happened by March 2024) has not yet happened.
Maduro almost immediately broke the terms of the declaration with ongoing claims and actions saying ‘Essequiba’ (as he calls it) was Venezuelan. Most notably he signed into law the results of the sham December referendum in an attempt to legitimise his claim to the Essequibo.
Trust Maduro?
Why should anyone believe a word Maduro says or a promise he makes? He has forced his own country into poverty and penury. He has overseen a crackdown on opponents and those who have won elections against him. He has turned the country (once one of the richest in Latin America) into an economic and political basket case. He has been helped by those around him who know their survival (and wealth) depends on him as well as others in the region who choose to be sycophantic towards him claiming he was democratically re-elected in the July 2024 election. Let’s be clear – he was not.
History shows that appeasement doesn’t work. Personally I believe that sitting down and talking to Maduro about something which was clearly settled in 1899 suggests there is something to discuss. There isn’t, period – especially if a process is ongoing at the ICJ.
The writings and ravings of a bitter and disenchanted man on his death bed don’t count as a reason to reopen an agreement that had been settled and implemented by all sides for 50-odd years before a claim was made that it was ‘null and void’. In the years since Prevost issued his claim no evidence has been found to support what he said. Not even the sniff of any real evidence. His claims are simply that, and not even worth any further acknowledgement.
There are many who will argue that you need to talk to other leaders in order to resolve differences and therefore the respective Presidents should meet to talk about the border controversy. Note I refuse to use the word dispute. There is no dispute about the Guyana-Venezuela border and anyone who uses that word undermines Guyana. There might be a controversy – if only because Venezuela now claims that the 1899 agreement is ‘null and void’. But no other sensible country believes that.
I don’t disagree that talking is good. I was a diplomat for nearly three decades and that was part and parcel of the job. But eventually it comes to a point when you know that you cannot reason with another party and further discussion is pointless. Continuing to talk makes no difference – the other party will not change – for their own (likely legitimate in their mind) reasons.
That is where we are with Maduro. He has no reason to come to a point where he agrees the border. Only gaining territory will pacify him and his supporters. This is clearly something Guyana should not give, and has no need to give. No evidence has ever been produced to suggest that the border, as decided in 1899, is anything but legitimate. So if Maduro will not change (and the Venezuelan opposition are, if anything, more hardline on this issue than Maduro) why talk?
Hence why Argyle is, and was, a pointless process.
What should Guyana now do?
Guyana is in the right – there is no question in my mind about that. But being right isn’t always enough. Guyana therefore has to build a coalition of those who will support it, both regionally and more broadly. The immediate problem is the CARICOM (the Caribbean ‘Common Market’) flakiness on this – caused by the ideological beliefs and economic needs of some Member States. Maybe it is time for Guyana to consider its own PetroCaribe (a Venezuelan Government scheme to provide cheap oil to friendly countries).
More broadly the Commonwealth is consistently clear in its support for Guyana. This has been the case with the UK (including undertaking ship visits, training and clear statements of political support), the US (along similar lines, including aircraft overflights) and other countries such as Canada. I doubt Guyana can rely on some of its other ‘partners’. India has been studiously quiet. As has China, although their involvement in oil production in Guyana through CNOOC could be a plus – they don’t want trouble. As for Russia – well they quite like taking other people’s territory and are clear supporters of Venezuela so I wouldn’t rely on them. Maybe it’s time to reconsider some Guyana-Russia bauxite contracts?
My advice to President Ali
Guyana needs to stand firm and ensure those who support it are clear in that support. It should give no sustenance to Venezuela by continuing fruitless discussions over things which are non-negotiable. It should be clear to those who support Venezuela that it cannot be business as usual. Such support will be noted and considered in broader relations. The time for trying to appease Venezuela is long past.
As Winston Churchill said in a speech to the House of Commons in May 1916: “United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts […] Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.”
Indeed there it is – the truth plain and simple is in support of Guyana.
About the author
Greg Quinn OBE is a former British diplomat who was High Commissioner to Guyana and Non-Resident Ambassador to Suriname from 2015-2020. He now runs Aodhan Consultancy. This piece is extracted from the 7th edition of Oil Dorado, edited by John Mair, which will be published in December 2024.
