Border Dispute Heats Up as Guyana Condemns 'Fragrant Violation' of Law by Venezuela

GEORGETOWN, Guyana – Members of Guyana's government have condemned what they described as “the flagrant violation of the rule of law by Venezuela” as the centuries old border dispute between the two countries took a new twist on Tuesday.

President Irfaan Ali and Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton headed separate delegations to the talks on Venezuela (DPI Photo)A joint statement issued following talks between President Irfaan Ali and Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton, said both sides agreed “that no effort should be spared to resist that country’s persistent endeavours to undermine Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Venezuela  had on Tuesday said it rejected the “offensive statements” made by the Guyana government regarding the upcoming consultative referendum on the Essequibo, which the South American country continues to claim as part of its territory.

“The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela categorically rejects the infamous and offensive statements of the Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, regarding the consultative referendum scheduled for December 3, 2023, which are loaded with deep contempt for the people Venezuelan, its Bolivarian history and its right to express itself, in a democratic manner, in matters of special national importance,” Caracas said in a statement.

Earlier Georgetown said is is concerned that Venezuela’s  referendum could lay the ground work for the annexation of the county of Essequibo, which Caracas has been claiming belongs to it.

Guyana said it had taken “careful note” of the issuance by the National Electoral Council of Venezuela of five questions to be asked in the national referendum.

It said among other questions, all of which are intended to further Venezuela’s “unlawful and unfounded claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s national territory, question five is the most pernicious.

“It brazenly seeks the approval of the Venezuelan people of the creation of a new Venezuelan State consisting of Guyana’s Essequibo Region, which would be incorporated into the national territory of Venezuela, and the granting of Venezuelan citizenship to the population.”

Guyana said this “amounts to nothing less than the annexation of Guyana’s territory, in blatant violation of the most fundamental rules of the UN Charter, the OAS Charter and general international law.

“Such a seizure of Guyana’s territory would constitute the international crime of aggression,” the Irfaan Ali government said, adding that it “categorically rejects any attempt to undermine the territorial integrity of the sovereign State of Guyana”.

But Caracas said that Guyana’s statements, “once again, are being drafted by the law firm employed by Exxon Mobil, a company that has corrupted the Latin American and Caribbean values of this nation and has bought off the Guyanese political class, dragging them into erratic actions, contrary to the Public International Law, with the objectives of appropriating energy resources that do not belong to it and attempting to threaten the peace and stability of Venezuela.

“Contrary to this disastrous anti-sovereign practice, the National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in full exercise of its powers, has decided to consult the people of Venezuela, the main lines of legal, diplomatic and political actions, in order to enforce the legitimate rights over the territory of Guayana Esequiba.’

In their joint statement, President Ali and Norton, who led seperate delegations to the talks,  said in discussing the latest actions of the Venezuelan government, they both “agreed that Guyana’s sovereignty is of paramount importance and is a matter on which the Guyanese people are all completely united”

They also agreed that the protection of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state must be subserved “by a vigorous and comprehensive public relations programme 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.

“They reaffirmed the commitment to the current judicial process that is being conducted under the aegis of the International Court of Justice and are convinced that this would finally resolve the question raised by Venezuela over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award”

The two Guyanese leaders recalled that for more than six decades after the 1899 Arbitral Award was delivered, “Venezuela treated the Award as a final settlement of the border between the two countries.

“To this end, it consistently recognised, affirmed and relied upon the 1899 Arbitral Award as “a full, perfect, and final settlement” of the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela”.

They said in particular, between 1900 and 1905, Venezuela participated in a joint demarcation of the boundary, in strict adherence to the letter of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and emphatically refused to countenance even minor technical modifications of the boundary line described in the Award.

“Venezuela proceeded to formally ratify the demarcated boundary in its domestic law and thereafter published official maps, which depicted the boundary following the line described in the 1899 Award.

“In July 1931, Venezuela concluded a boundary agreement with Brazil that expressly confirmed the tri-junction point of the boundaries of British Guiana, Venezuela and Brazil as described in the 1899 Award. For more than sixty years, Venezuela gave full effect to that Award, and never raised a concern as to its validity and binding legal effects.”

Ali and Norton said that the questions to be posed in the referendum in December “violated the sanctity of treaties.

“Moreover, they are in blatant disregard of the principles of international law. In particular, question three of the set of questions to be placed before the people of Venezuela speaks to the “historical position” of Venezuela “of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequib”

They said one of the questions “seeks the approval of the Venezuelan people for the creation of a new Venezuelan State consisting of Guyana’s Essequibo Region, to include “the granting of citizenship and Venezuelan identity card in accordance with the Geneva Agreement and international law”. This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the Geneva Agreement and a clear violation of International Law”.

Ali and Norton, who have agreed “to keep in close consultation on this matter of national importance,” noted the fact that “no Government or the people of one country has the right in international law to seize, annex or conquer the territory of another country. International law emphatically prohibits this

“They acknowledged the support by the international community for the preservation of Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and urged that Venezuela’s actions be closely monitored as they pose a serious threat to the peace and security of the hemisphere,” the joint statement added.