OPINION: Why Venezuela Wants a Piece of Guyana – Reybert Carrillo | Caracas Chronicles 

Map of Guyana – Disputed Area being claimed by Venezuela

Maduro can try to resurrect an old claim to distract Venezuelans, but what’s the geographical reason to want the Essequibo? How would we benefit from it? 

Reybert Carrillo | Caracas Chronicles 

Since the 19th century, Venezuela has claimed a good part of what is now the Republic of Guyana. Venezuelan kids were used to seeing that “zona en reclamación” as a striped area attached to our country’s Eastern border, and imagine it like the hind legs of a cow, a rhinoceros, or even an angry elephant, whose head lies between the Guajira and the Paraguana peninsula.           

Decades pass and that area remains under Guyana’s sovereignty and control. But the Essequibo, as that territory is known because of the river that marks the border that Venezuela claims, is still a subject revived – every-once-in-a-while – by different governments, when they deemed it convenient.

2020 was going to be a crucial year in the century-old dispute. In 2018, the International Court of Justice claimed jurisdiction and was expected to convene a hearing in March 2020. Although the case was stalled by the pandemic, it is still alive, and it has become a part Nicolás Maduro’s foreign enemy narrative.

The Essequibo dispute, however, isn’t just a topic to distract us; although the claim is usually approached from the historic perspective, it’s better to have a prospective vision, also. From a geographical point of view, and even dare to think about which options a democratic Venezuela would have to manage a territory which, truly, has always been foreign to us.

What is the Essequibo? 

That area with black and white stripes you see on the eastern side of ALL Venezuelan maps – made in Venezuela, is actually a territory of 159,500 square kilometers currently in dispute between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

That area is adjacent to the southeastern Venezuelan border — from the Roraima to the southern Orinoco Delta — and on the western Guyana border and the Atlantic window between the mouths of the Orinoco and Essequibo rivers. The territory is home to around 300,000 people, between Afro-Guyanese (38% of the population), Indo-Guyanese (52%), and Native Indigenous people (Warao, Arawak, and Caribe Peoples, 10%).

The Essequibo is part of the Guiana Shield and just like the neighboring Venezuelan regions, it has a tropical climate, with a dry season from November to April, and a rainy season from May to October. It is a bio-diverse natural context, on top of geological strata rich in minerals and hydrocarbons.

When did the dispute begin and who’s been involved? 

The history of the current conflict goes back to the end of the 18th century, when the Dutch and Spanish were competing for the region. The Dutch, who at the time controlled Dutch Guiana – now the Republic of Suriname – handed over the territory of what is Guyana today to Great Britain, who had a better historical understanding — probably more than we did — of the geostrategic importance of the land, when they sent captain Sir Walter Raleigh; Daniel O’Leary, British Chargé d’Affaires in Caracas; and Sir Robert Hermann Schomburgk to explore.

The possibility of establishing a Venezuelan Essequibo doesn’t depend on the factual and diplomatic tools, as much as it does on how Venezuelans and Guyanese understand and see themselves in each other. 

Halfway through the 1830s, after the British envoys’ expeditions, interest in the area began to flourish to the point where, in 1840, they tried to move the Guyana border almost to the mouth of the Orinoco river. Bear in mind that Venezuela back then wasn’t very clear about its borders, nor did it have much control over them.

In 1899, an orphaned Venezuela trusted the United States with its diplomatic defense for the Paris arbitration.  The court convened in Paris and was made up of two United States Supreme Court Justices, two assigned by the United Kingdom, and presided by Russian internationalist Federico Martens, and the ruling was in favor of Great Britain. But in 1962, Venezuela presented evidence of fraud, collected for at least two decades, to the UN, which suggested that Martens proceeded in a partialized manner.

In 1966, after Guyana got its independence from Great Britain, the Geneva Agreement was signed, a document where, in broad strokes, Great Britain recognized Venezuela’s claim over the territory, with the consent of the newborn Republic of Guyana, which would become part of the agreement. THE 1899 ARBITRAL AWARD WAS REPLACED BY THE GENEVA AGREEMENT AND IS WHAT STANDS TODAY. 

What would be the implications of annexing the Essequibo to Venezuela? 

The list of natural resources we could gain includes an extensive hydrographic network that includes the Essequibo River and its Atlantic delta, the Cuyuní, Rupununi, Mazaruni, and Supenaam rivers, as well as the Potaro river and its 220-metre Kaieteur Falls. Venezuela would secure an area with at least four different natural environments, with an altitude ranging from 0 to 1,500 m above sea level, including the Pakaraima mountain range, the Rupununi savannah, and the Canacu mountains. It also includes a variety of rainforests, flooding and coastal flatlands, and littoral forests. BUT PROBABLY THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FEATURE FROM THIS NATURAL STOCK WOULD BE THE BAUXITE, DIAMOND, GOLD, MANGANESE, URANIUM, OIL, AND NATURAL GAS RESERVES. 

The northern coast of the Essequibo would give Venezuela a much more consolidated exit to the Atlantic Ocean: Our territory would gain 280 km of coast line, which would mean an expansion not only of its continental platform, but also of its sea limits, its adjoining areas and exclusive economic areas as well. This would generate total maritime sovereignty over the Atlantic for 22.2 km, and customs jurisdiction for 44.4 km. Venezuela now has the ability to cover the southern Caribbean thanks to the checkpoints at the Isla de Aves and the Los Monjes archipelago; if the coastal band towards the Essequibo is expanded, the fishing resources would be much broader, also strengthening Venezuela in terms of security and defense.

Which sectors of the Venezuelan economy would benefit from the Essequibo annexation? 

THE ESSEQUIBO IS ALREADY BEING EXPLOITED BY THE MINING INDUSTRY IN GUYANA AND ATTRACTING INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT. The discovery of new oil deposits by Exxon Mobil in its territorial waters has sprung a debate where it places Guyana as the next oil boom in the western hemisphere, since it is estimated that the new deposits may contain around one billion oil barrels. Only transnational companies would be capable of extracting and refining it: GUYANA IS, IN A SENSE, LIKE VENEZUELA WAS A CENTURY AGO. THOSE RESERVES ARE LOCATED IN WATERS STILL IN DISPUTE. 

In a responsible Venezuela, you’d have to think beyond extractions, especially when we know how the Chavista Mining Arc project is destroying the Venezuelan Guayana, while a gold fever causes extensive damage in the rest of the country.

If the Essequibo becomes Venezuelan, it could serve to increase the electric output through its rivers, and those basins, as well as the increased sea limits, giving the country more areas for fishing. Having almost 300 km of new coastland and over 40 km of ocean waters would benefit customs taxes by maritime transit, fishing activity, military exercises, international security and defense, tourist activity, strengthening commercial exchange with Europe and Africa, scientific development in terms of the study of delta mangroves in the mouth of the river, among other benefits.

Tourism would greatly benefit, too; the ecological diversity of the Venezuelan side of the Guiana Shield, would then expand to the Essequibo, including iconic landmarks like the Maringma and Mount Ayanganna sandstone tepui in the Pakaraima Mountains or the Camoa, Canucu, and Merume sierras. Venezuela expanding its jurisdiction over the shield would be argument enough to establish new measures to boost tourism and, at the same time, protect ecosystems that could give wider support to the diverse Venezuelan nature.

But how plausible is the recovery of the Essequibo? 

When someone in Suriname thinks of a foreign destination, their eyes automatically focus on Amsterdam, not Rio de Janeiro or Montevideo — because even if they’re in Paramaribo, their concept of the outside world is mostly in Europe, NOT South America. The same thing probably happens for those born in Essequibo, who are more drawn to Georgetown or London than they are to Caracas. The possibility of establishing a Venezuelan Essequibo doesn’t depend on the factual and diplomatic tools, as much as it does on how Venezuelans and Guyanese understand and see themselves in each other.

THE CHANCES OF VENEZUELA MAKING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM ARE BLURRY. This topic has been traditionally handled by politicians to improve their popularity, from the military invasion threats made by dictator Pérez Jiménez, to Chávez’s quest for favors in Georgetown. The case is currently in a total limbo, since none of the representatives of the Venezuelan Executive Branch – neither of them – have been convincing in defending a territory that is ours and will probably end up lost in a pile of papers at The Hague.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. 

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • kamtanblog  On 02/27/2021 at 2:06 am

    Simple Simon suggests
    No decisions neccessary on disputed territories.

    Q
    Who owns all lands in Venezuela ?
    Who owns all lands in Guyana. ?

    One solution
    Shared/joint ownership written into law by both governments. A land reformation without the politricks ! Written into law that in disputed area
    lands are “leasehold” not “freehold”…fee applied for its development. That benefits those who occupy/use lands.

    Am sure many reading this may disagree and hopefully comment.
    We learn more from disagreements !

    My two cents

    Kamtan uk-ex-EU

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/27/2021 at 4:13 am

    Full, Perfect, and Final Settlement of ALL Questions Referred to the Arbitrators – Means Just Dat!

    If Venezuela is now declaring that they are NOT satisfied with the current Full, Perfect, and Final Settlement of ALL Questions Referred to the Arbitrators in 1899 ….

    What reason do we have to believe Venezuela would be satisfied with any other Settlement?

    Venezuela has invaded and occupied Guyana since 1966, and remains an occupying military force in Guyana.

    The foregoing essay declares: “From a geographical point of view, and even dare to think about which options a democratic Venezuela would have to manage a territory which, truly, has always been foreign to us.”

    “ …. a territory which, truly, has always been foreign to us.” – Of course, possession is nine-tenths of the law and Essequibo has been under Guyana’s sovereignty and control since 1899.

    Venezuela accepted the 1899 Arbitral Award and conducted their affairs as though they accepted the Award, until Guyana was granted its independence in 1966.

    The author stated: “In 1899, an orphaned Venezuela trusted the United States with its diplomatic defense for the Paris arbitration.”

    So, the Venezuelans assigned the defence of their territory to the Americans and now find it convenient to quarrel with Guyana about a decision they made regarding their territory way back then.

    It would seem to me that Venezuela’s dispute is with the USA – why don’t Venezuela file a malpractice suit against their American lawyers?

    One wonders if they are having second thoughts about messing with Uncle Sam’s military muscle in his own backyard, at duh.

    What reason do we have to believe Venezuela would be satisfied with any other Settlement, anyway?

    Well, at least, the author got one thing right: “The case is currently in a total limbo, since none of the representatives of the Venezuelan Executive Branch – neither of them – have been convincing in defending a territory that is ours and will probably end up lost in a pile of papers at The Hague.”

    Perhaps, Venezuela is convinced that they got the ordnance to go beyond Ankoko Island, militarily?

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/27/2021 at 9:26 am

    Robert wrote:

    I don’t like the thought of Venezuela taking over the Essequibo region, the loss to Guyana would be the last nail in the coffin. This article was written by a Venezuelan and is therefore biased.

    I wonder if his claim that Britain signed off the Essequibo to Venezuela in 1966 has merit. If it does, I would think the international court would rule in Venezuela’s favour, I hope not.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/27/2021 at 9:32 am

    Robert: The document was signed under duress. Guyana was – more than likely – expecting Venezuela to declare war if they refused to sign.

    In my opinion – that was a valid concern – we lived to deal with Venezuela, today.

    I am very sure our lawyers will inform the folks in The Hague of the feeling of terror under which we signed.

  • Ron Saywack.  On 02/27/2021 at 12:22 pm

    Reybert Carrillo writes:

    “In 1966, after Guyana got its independence from Great Britain, the Geneva Agreement was signed, a document where, in broad strokes, Great Britain recognized Venezuela’s claim over the territory, with the consent of the newborn Republic of Guyana, which would become part of the agreement.”

    The Geneva Agreement was signed on 17 February 1966, three months before Guyana became independent.

    I am sure how many of you are up to speed with the history of the Guyana/Venezuela border dispute. In case you are not, I have provided a brief recap in the following paragraphs:

    1) the area in dispute represents a significant portion of Guyana — 159,500 square kilometers (61,000 square miles, and 300,000 Guyanese);

    2) when the British acquired Guyana from the Netherlands in 1814, the western border with Venezuela was not defined;

    3) the British government hired a German land surveyor named Robert Schomburgk in 1835 to delineate the border. After his work was completed, it resulted in an additional 30,000 square miles of territory to Britain;

    4) thereafter, precious minerals such as gold, diamond, manganese, timber, and other valuable resources were discovered within the new demarcation. The British greedily annexed an additional 37,000 square miles beyond the Schomburgk boundary;

    5) Venezuela objected to the British land grab and sought American intervention. The Munroe Doctrine (MD) was invoked. The Monroe Document was a U.S. policy that opposed European colonialism in the Americas. The MD argued that any intervention in the politics of the Americas would be deemed an act of aggression against the United States;

    6) citing the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. sent a strongly-worded letter to British Prime Minister (and Foreign Secretary) Robert Salisbury, demanding that the dispute be sent to arbitration. Salisbury responded that Monroe Doctrine had no validity in international law.

    The response upset the United States and President Grover Cleveland asked Congress for authorization to create a commission “whose findings would be enforced by all means”. The British and Venezuelans were apprised of the decision to create an arbitration commission. Venezuela enthusiastically embraced the tribunal, thinking that it would rule in its favor;

    7) the tribunal panel comprised of two American, two British, and a Russian member. The tribunal convened in Paris and rendered its decision on 3 October 1899. The decision ruled that the border adhere to the 1835 Schomburgk line;

    8) Venezuela, even though deeply disappointed, ratified the tribunal’s verdict. The matter was deemed settled and closed;

    9) on 8 February 1944, a letter allegedly written by a junior Venezuelan lawyer, who had attended the Paris arbitration, was posthumously published. It claimed that the Russian tribunal member had colluded with the two British members to reach a deal;

    10) in 1962, Venezuela declared the Paris decision null and void;

    11) the three parties (Guyana, Venezuela, and Britain) ostensibly agreed to the February 17, 1966, Geneva Agreement to reopen the case for further discussion with the aim to amicably settle the long-standing dispute.

    It is highly unlikely that Venezuela will ever agree with the Schomburgk 1835 demarcation and, consequently, the dispute will drag on indefinitely or possibly result in a military confrontation involving the United States and/or Russia. Let’s hope for a peaceful resolution.

    Ron Saywack.

  • wally n  On 02/27/2021 at 2:59 pm

    “Let’s hope for a peaceful resolution” Hopefully
    I don’t see that, too many predators, and much more international politics involved. Guyana sits in the jaws of a vice, hope they pick/have the right allies.

    • kamtanblog  On 02/27/2021 at 5:25 pm

      Three neighbours !
      Venezuela
      Brazil
      Suriname

      Good bad and ugly !

      Which one from hell ?

      K

  • Dennis Albert  On 02/28/2021 at 3:43 pm

    Offshore has plenty oil—50 billion barrels, not 1 billion.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/28/2021 at 5:54 pm

    Gerry wrote:

    This is a very pro-Venezuela interpretation of the Geneva agreement. I myself am of the view that the signing of the Geneva agreement was a mistake. However, it is false to say that it replaces the 1899 Award.

    The fight over Guyana’s Essequibo is real.

    My response:

    VENEZUELA SHOULD GO TO HELL – GUYANA IS WE OWN ….!!

    If Venezuela is so sure of their position, why don’t they show up in court??

    Let them make a legal argument, if they can!

    They think their ordnance will do the trick, in the end!!?!

    EXXON MOBIL is planted in Guyana.

    Let them step on EXXON MOBIL’s toes one more time!?!!

    This dispute was settled in 1899.

    GET OVER YOURSELVES, VENEZUELA!!

    • Brother Man  On 02/28/2021 at 10:53 pm

      De bus driver Maduro is itching to make a move eastward. He knows de strong man in Moscow keeping a close eye on de border situation as well as de oder big vested parties in Washington and London.

      Deep, deep trouble simmering in we backyard. Ah weh abeh go run fuh shelta?

      Brother Man

      • kamtanblog  On 03/01/2021 at 12:26 am

        Bro man
        You may run but u can’t hide ?
        Dem Jews run far and wide before Hitler and his nazi arrived. If you good swimmer Triniland is nearest …if not Brazil or Suriname is nearer/neighbour. Brazil has agreement with Guyana to assist if invaded. After it is addressed
        at UN Security Council. Which may be “too little too late”…before war declared get on your push bike or fishing boat.
        Be prepared be mobile !
        Of course if u qualify u can always join GDF !

        Now dat oil flowing the military budget will
        allow for “national service” expansion.
        Boys brigade !

        There will be no war
        It takes two to tango !

        Politricks !

        K

      • Brother Man  On 03/01/2021 at 4:47 am

        You are so pollyannaish, K man.

        Not that there is anything wrong with that. Or it could also be a sign of ole age, no? hehe. 😆😆

        Brother Man

      • kamtanblog  On 03/01/2021 at 5:07 am

        Ha ha !
        Bit of both….hopefully wiser !

        K

  • Dennis Albert  On 03/01/2021 at 7:09 am

    Guaido also claims the Essequibo so it doesn’t even matter who is elected in Venezuela. Essequibo is always going to be a dispute.

  • brandli62  On 03/01/2021 at 11:26 am

    The Venezuelan claims to the Essequibo territory are just ludicrous and the author Reybert Carrillo of the article above is living in fantasy land. The eldorado of natural resources that the territory promises are not sufficient to justify Venezuela’s claims. The facts are clear and undisputed by neutral observers. There has been no Venezuelan military presence, colonisation or settlement activities in the area since Venezuela gained independence from Spain in 1810.

    By contrast, Essequibo and Pomeroon were Dutch colonies in the Guiana region on the north coast of South America from 1616 to 1814 and 1650 to 1689, respectively. The Pomeroon colony, which goes back to a Dutch trading post established in 1581, was dissolved in 1689, and the territory was given to Essequibo. The Essequibo colony formed part of the colonies that are known under the collective name of Dutch Guiana. In 1796, it was permanently occupied by the British. At the London Convention of 1814, it was decided that Essequibo and Demerara (the Pomeroon River included) and Berbice had to be ceded by the Dutch to the United Kingdom, and they were made part of British Guiana in 1831.

    The Dutch settlements on the Pomeroon and Essequibo were preceded by the Portuguese, who had established a fort on the an island called Kyk-Over-Al in the Essequibo river (actually a side-river called the Mazaruni). At the time of Dutch colonisation, the area had however been abandoned and only the ruins of the Portuguese fort were found. Under Dutch rule, the colonies experienced repeated attacks by local Indians and the Spanish (1596), British (1666) and French (1689) and there was also a brief French occupation from 1782-1783.

    Given these historical facts, particularly the absence of any noteworthy Spanish or Venezuelan presence in the Essequibo and Pomeroon territories since their establishment as Dutch colonies in 1616 and 1650, respectively, makes any claims by Venezuela look like a far reach and groundless.

    I am confident that the International Court of Justice in The Hague will take the historical evidence in consideration, when it assesses the Venezuelan claims to the Essequibo territory.

  • Anthony Persaud  On 03/01/2021 at 1:54 pm

    We call on Uncle Sam to defend Guyana, in return for we cheap oil. Venezuela is a greedy bully. Uncle Sam will put it in its place. If Uncle Sam fail then Brazil should step in. The PPP government should start building a lot of Bilateral ties with Brazil. We need friends who can protect us from the ugly bully called Venezuela.

    • brandli62  On 03/01/2021 at 2:17 pm

      Agreed! Brazil has been a strong supporter of Guyana. However, the US is the only power in the region with a sufficient military arm to push Venezuela back in case of an invasion. I cannot see the Brazilian navy doing the job.

    • Dennis Albert  On 03/03/2021 at 7:01 am

      So the AFC signed the contract with Exxon is more of an insurance policy against war with Venezuela?

      The primary school dropout in the rum shops keep talking about dreams of Jaguar cars, jaguar pets and praying five times a day to the Saudis while knowing nothing of how oil and geopolitics work.

      • brandli62  On 03/03/2021 at 7:17 am

        Having Exxon as the major operator on the Guyanese offshore fields is definitely part of an insurance policy against Venezuelan aggression. The real test will be how will Venezuela react once Exxon starts to drill in areas of the Stabroek block west of the mouth of the Essequibo? To date, none of the oil companies dared to drill in offshore areas that Venezuela is claiming.

  • Ron Saywack.  On 03/01/2021 at 3:41 pm

    Venezuela has no legal legs to stand on:

    It should be noted that the Paris Tribunal was made up of some of the world’s most distinguished and foremost jurists of that time, who thoroughly debated and deliberated the dispute for the better part of two years. They carefully and impartially considered both written and oral arguments – presented in great detail.

    Justice Brewer, one of the American jurists on the panel, stated that the British arbitrators were profoundly impartial and adhered to the strictest principles of justice and fairness.

    The Tribunal’s verdict, handed down on 4 October 1899, the day before it was reached, was a unanimous decision.

    Venezuela at the time appeared happy that they were awarded control of the mouth of the Orinoco River. The British expressed disappointment that they couldn’t retain control of that strategic area.

    The dispute was thus decided upon and finally settled by a court (tribunal) of competent jurisdiction. Venezuela is fighting a losing battle and trying to climb a slippery slope.

    The Venezuelans should consider the meaning of the Latin phrase “res judicata”: that a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court may not be pursued further by the same parties.

    This matter, simmering now for nearly 170 years, may take an indeterminate number of more years before it is finally put to bed.

    Venezuela should simply keep quiet and instead focus on the troubling humanitarian and ecological crises raging within, and leave Guyana alone.

    Ron Saywack.

    • brandli62  On 03/02/2021 at 3:20 am

      Ron, many thanks for sharing the insight about the Paris Tribunal decision in 1899. It seems to me that the decision was indeed very impartial and based on historical evidence leading to the general view that the mouth of the Orinoco had always been in the Spanish/Venezuelan sphere of colonisation, whereas the Essequibo and its tributaries were part of the Dutch/British domain of control.

    • Ron Saywack.  On 03/02/2021 at 12:14 pm

      Correction: a slight error in the order of dates:

      “The Tribunal’s verdict, handed down on 4 October 1899, the day before it was reached, was a unanimous decision.”

      It should read:

      The Tribunal’s verdict, handed down on 4 October 1899, the day after it was reached (on 3 October), was a unanimous decision.

      R.S.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/02/2021 at 1:08 am

    Some of us are criticizing the author of the featured essay [above].

    But, Reybert Carrillo | Caracas Chronicles has been sensible and balanced in expressing his opinion on the matter, in my opinion.

    Carrillo did declare ….

    CHANCES OF VENEZUELA MAKING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM ARE BLURRY

    This topic has been traditionally handled by politicians to improve their popularity, from the military invasion threats made by dictator Pérez Jiménez, to Chávez’s quest for favors in Georgetown.

    The case is currently in a total limbo, since none of the representatives of the Venezuelan Executive Branch – neither of them – have been convincing in defending a territory that is ours and will probably end up lost in a pile of papers at The Hague.

    Guyana – if I may say so – agrees with the closing paragraph by Reybert Carrillo.

    • Brother Man  On 03/02/2021 at 2:42 am

      Who cares what a lowly Caracas reporter says. It is de crazy bus driver dat’s the problem. De man issuing decrees but he’s like a broke mob boss.

      Ee nah got friends. The whole continent supporting we. The bus driver mad dat de Americans are supporting we and flexing their muscles.

      Ah hear he releasing the fishermen at first light.

      If dis mobster keeps it up he might soon see Uncle Sam at his doorstep. Sort a reminds me of another dictator in Tripoli who was found hiding under a bridge.

      Brother Man

      • brandli62  On 03/02/2021 at 3:15 am

        Keep in mind that Maduro is kept in power by the Cubans, Russians and Chinese, who arm his army and buy Venezuelan oil. There are still people in the Guyanese administration that think the above mentioned countries are important allies. If they were indeed, why didn’t they tell publicly to Maduro to back down?

    • brandli62  On 03/02/2021 at 3:09 am

      “THE CHANCES OF VENEZUELA MAKING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM ARE BLURRY. This topic has been traditionally handled by politicians to improve their popularity, from the military invasion threats made by dictator Pérez Jiménez, to Chávez’s quest for favors in Georgetown. The case is currently in a total limbo, since none of the representatives of the Venezuelan Executive Branch – neither of them – have been convincing in defending a territory that is ours and will probably end up lost in a pile of papers at The Hague.”

      Regarding the closing paragraph (see above), I agree with Reybert Carrillo’s analysis that territorial claims and threats towards Guyana have been used for domestic purposes by various Venezuelan leaders of the years. However, I disagree strongly with his notion of “a territory that is ours”. The Guyanese will strongly reject this point on the basis of historical evidence and by the fact that the border issue was settled in the International Tribunal’s decision of 1899.

      The fact that Guyana is still having to deal with the border issue 122 years later can be squarely attributed to the UK, who had allowed Venezuela to put their food in the closing door shortly before Guyana gained independence in 1966. This opened this toxic can of worms.

      • Brother Man  On 03/02/2021 at 3:55 am

        You are not good at math apparently, professor. Venezuela been complaining to the British about the border line going back to around 1840. The arbitration decision dates back 122 years, not the actual dispute.

        Brother Man

      • brandli62  On 03/02/2021 at 4:11 am

        Honorable Brother Man! Here, the correct maths is a matter of interpretation. I was referring to the 1899 Tribunal Decision, which was meant to settle the border issues between Venezuela and British Guiana for good. 😉

      • kamtanblog  On 03/02/2021 at 4:35 am

        Gentlemen
        Mad-dog aka Maduro v Sadam aka Satan

        Ex bus driver cum presidente replaced Chavez
        a very charismatic leader …after Jesus comes Judas.
        Ex CIA trained agent presidente Sadam endorsed by USA to gurantee de oil flow.
        ….after agreement comes disagreement.
        Sour grapes !

        USA will allow mad dog enough rope to hang himself ! Headlines ….USA saves the Venezuelan people from “starvation” !

        At my cynical most

        Lord Kamtan aka sceptic

  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/02/2021 at 4:28 pm

    brandli62: While you are quoting the author [above] and commenting –

    “Regarding the closing paragraph (see above), I agree with Reybert Carrillo’s analysis that territorial claims and threats towards Guyana have been used for domestic purposes by various Venezuelan leaders of the years.

    However, I disagree strongly with his notion of “a territory that is ours”. The Guyanese will strongly reject this point on the basis of historical evidence ….”

    You are RIGHT, no doubt. But if you revert to the opening paragraph you will find the source of the nonsense Venezuelan children are taught in school:

    “Venezuelan kids were used to seeing that “zona en reclamación” as a striped area attached to our country’s Eastern border, and imagine it like the hind legs of a cow, a rhinoceros, or even an angry elephant, whose head lies between the Guajira and the Paraguana peninsula.”

    After years of delusion – There is reality!!

    I say, Venezuela has conducted their affairs as though they agreed with the 1899 Arbitral Award.

    And, in the second paragraph, Carrillo wrote:

    “Decades pass and that area remains under Guyana’s sovereignty and control.”

    Carrillo even attempts to answer the question: “What is the Essequibo?”

    “That area with black and white stripes you see on the eastern side of ALL Venezuelan maps – made in Venezuela, is actually a territory of 159,500 square kilometers currently in dispute between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.”

    In the fourth paragraph, Carrillo declares:

    “From a geographical point of view, and even dare to think about which options a democratic Venezuela would have to MANAGE A TERRITORY WHICH, TRULY, HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOREIGN TO US.”

    Guyanese children could easily answer the question – “What is the Essequibo?”:

    Possession is nine-tenths of the law; and Essequibo is in the possession of Guyana subject to Guyana’s sovereignty and control.

    To paraphrase Carrillo: The TERRITORY, in question – “WHICH, TRULY, HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOREIGN TO US.”

    Belongs to, and will remain, part of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

    This eye-pass [presumptuousness] must stop!!

  • Dennis Albert  On 03/03/2021 at 7:06 am

    It looks like Venezuelan women are being raped as an act of war:
    https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2021/03/03/another-woman-comes-forward-claims-she-was-abducted-brutalized-by-serial-rapist/

    • Brother Man  On 03/03/2021 at 11:44 am

      Dennis, Trevor, Winston, G. Porgy, please explain how this is relevant to Mr Carrilla’s
      essay on the historical border dispute.

      It is obvious to me that the Venezuelan authorities are dealing with a serious serial, disturbed, sex criminal. It’s clearly is a police matter; and not an act of war. How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

      These kinds of criminals should be locked up for a long time. They should smell the urine and stale air of a dark prison cell. They shouldn’t be walking free in any society.

      Brother Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s