Venezuela x Guyana: Understanding in the 5point dispute over Essequibo
The longrunning controversy between the two countries over the territory called Essequibo which Venezuela says was mistakenly taken over by an arbitration award in 1899 and in reality constitutes twothirds of Guyana's territory has sparked a deep crisis between both neighbors.
In 1966, the parties committed themselves to seeking a practical and satisfactory solution to the dispute through the socalled Geneva Agreement.
However, since the amicable mechanism did not allow for a solution, Guyana, more than a quarter of a century later, requested that the case be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which will decide the dispute.
At the same time, Guyana began awarding oil exploration concessions in unrestricted waters to which Venezuela believes it has a right.
1 of 2 “The only way for Venezuela to control Essequibo would be military action, but the country is not capable of that,” says the former Venezuelan ambassador to Guyana Photo: EPA “The only way for Venezuela to control Essequibo , would be a military operation.” “We have taken measures, but they are not able to do that,” says the former Venezuelan ambassador to Guyana Photo: EPA
On December 3, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro held a referendum on Essequibo. And after announcing the positive results, she pushed forward legislation that would allow the annexation of the territory to Venezuela.
This announcement caused concern in Guyana. The country's President Irfaan Ali said its defense forces were on high alert and communicating with the United States Southern Command.
Maduro also accused the North American oil company ExxonMobil, the largest oil producer in Guyana, of financing Venezuelan opposition politicians.
In fact, Venezuela's Attorney General, Tarek William Saab, ordered the detention of 14 people (including several opposition politicians) accused of treason over an alleged “financing and conspiracy related to ExxonMobil against Venezuela.”
The American company said the accusation was ridiculous and unfounded. And several analysts argue that Maduro's actions over Essequibo are part of an attempt to weaken the Venezuelan opposition ahead of the country's presidential election scheduled for 2024.
In this context, BBC News Mundo the BBC's Spanish service spoke to Sadio Garavini di Turno. Between 1980 and 1984 he was Venezuela's ambassador to Guyana's capital, Georgetown.
Garavini devoted decades to researching the territorial conflict around Essequibo, not only as a diplomat but also as an academic.
The former ambassador has a doctorate in political science, a university professor and the author of several publications on the foreign policy of Venezuela and Guyana. Check out the interview below.
Two of two Bolivarian militias defended polling stations during the Essequibo referendum in Venezuela. Photo: GETTY IMAGES Bolivarian militias defended polling stations during the Essequibo referendum in Venezuela. — Photo: GETTY IMAGES
BBC News World: The Government of Nicolas Maduro announced that it would establish a Venezuelan state in Essequibo and award oil concessions in the area under its control Guyana. How is this explained?
Sadio Garavini di Turno: On an international level this is ridiculous because of course what does that mean?
Maduro appointed a general in charge of the defense of Guyana Essequiba, but based in Tumeremo, a Venezuelan city in southern Bolívar state. He decided that PDVSA [Petróleos de Venezuela S. A.] will have a branch to invest in Guyana Essequiba.
Well, the question is: how do you do that? This would obviously imply violence.
As for PDVSA, the company doesn't even have the money to invest in “today's Venezuela” and would like to see if it has the means to do so in maritime and submarine waters off the coast of Essequibo to do.
BBC: Why? Venezuela Are you taking this attitude now?
Garavini: All of this is an internal political maneuver in the face of an international issue to show that something is being done about Essequibo's call for the referendum which was another internal political maneuver to make the opposition's success in the primaries disappear.
At the international level, the only way to exercise sovereignty over Essequiba in Guyana, in the way they say, is to create a new map of Venezuela including Essequibo, a previously claimed region. Well, it should be a military action to exercise sovereignty over the territory.
BBC: Is this military action possible?
Garavini: I believe that the Venezuelan Armed Forces do not have the capacity to do this due to the catastrophe in which they find themselves. In addition, there are no roads and therefore they have to walk through the forest, disembark by sea or send paratroopers, which means complete incapacitation.
In fact, what they are doing is irresponsible from an international perspective because it is causing us great harm at the International Court of Justice, where the matter is currently ongoing.
The government should prepare to defend Venezuela's rights at the International Court of Justice.
BBC: How important is Essequibo to them Venezuela?
Garavini: It is essential for Venezuela to defend the exit to the Atlantic, the projection of its exclusive economic zone and its continental platform, not only that created by the Essequibo claim, but also that of the Amacuro Delta [Estado venezuelano localizado no extremo nordeste do país, em frente ao Oceano Atlântico e ao lado de Essequibo].
Guyana has arbitrarily demarcated a line that supposedly marks the border with Venezuela and which is unacceptable because it limits our projection in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Delta Amacuro State. This is unacceptable.
As for Essequibo itself, it must be remembered that it represents twothirds of the territory that Guyana has considered as its own and controlled and administered since the 1899 arbitration award.
The Geneva Agreement speaks of a practical and satisfactory solution to both.
If we were to reach an agreement on this basis, it would be obvious that an agreement satisfactory to Guyana would never involve the abandonment of twothirds of its territory. This must be understood through a good reading of the Geneva Convention.
What can be achieved with the Geneva Agreement is a meaningful territorial settlement, which is certainly very difficult to define by mutual agreement between the two parties. Therefore, third party intervention will most likely be required.
Therefore, I emphasize the marine and underwater areas of an oilrich region and not so much the territory itself, since obviously only part of it could return to Venezuela under the Geneva Agreement.
BBC: How does this maritime demarcation work? Guyana harms that Venezuela?
Garavini: It surrounds hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of marine and underwater areas, rich in oil, gas and fisheries, in addition to the outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. If this line is accepted we would have to ask permission to leave the Atlantic, which is clearly unacceptable.
However, this has a secondary connection to the Essequibo issue. This is because Guyana arbitrarily drew this line from Punta Barima, the border of the Essequibo Territory. But that will still be discussed at the end.
It is irresponsible for the Maduro government to ignore the International Court of Justice. Now the government says the ICJ is being done on behalf of Exxon.
There, at the International Court of Justice, we must resolve the problem of delimitation of maritime and underwater areas after the Essequibo issue has been resolved.
BBC: What mechanism or strategy works? Venezuela Should he be asserting the rights he supposedly has over Essequibo?
Garavini: Now there is no alternative.
People do not understand that two United Nations Secretaries General and the final mediator have decided to take the matter to the International Court of Justice.
If no agreement is reached between the parties, the Geneva Convention gives the Secretary General the opportunity to decide which peaceful dispute resolution mechanism should be used. Therefore, from an international law perspective, there is no way out.
We have to defend ourselves before the International Court of Justice and the government is failing in its role of preparing our arguments to defend our rights.
We have arguments showing that the 1899 award was unfair because it was the result of a political agreement between the Russian President and the two British members of the court. We should do this with the greatest national and international experts.
BBC: The international community seems to support the current status quo. A Guyana states that it is supported by, among others, the OAS, Caricom (the Caribbean Community), the British Commonwealth, the USA and the United Kingdom. Why aren't other voices heard supporting this? Venezuela?
Garavini: Guyana has always had the support of Caricom and the British Commonwealth of Nations. Caricom's headquarters are in Georgetown and Guyana is a member of the Commonwealth.
But the rest, the vast majority of the international community, does not support Guyana. It supports the peaceful solution of the problem before the International Court of Justice, as two UN Secretaries General have already decided in accordance with the Geneva Agreement.
The Maduro government's disinformation campaign makes people believe that the Geneva Convention is one thing and the International Court of Justice is another. But we are at the International Court of Justice because of the Geneva Convention.
BBC: It is alleged that the strategy of avoiding the ICJ and trying to resolve the dispute with the Guyana bilateral is the one that best suits that Venezuela. In this case, wouldn't it be logical that Maduro would try to avoid going to the International Court of Justice?
Garavini: Of course, but I should have done this much sooner.
The very serious mistake of the Venezuelan government occurred in December 2013 when the then Chancellor of Guyana, Carolyn RodriguesBirkett, declared that after 26 years of bilateral negotiations with the support of the mediator and many more years since the Geneva Agreement, the moment had come to end the demarcation of the territory in its maritime and underwater areas and define the controversy once and for all.
Why? Because between 2010 and 2013, great riches were discovered in Guyana, great concessions were made, there was the Teknik Perdana crisis the famous oil seismic vessel detained by the Venezuelan Navy and Guyana said: “Enough is enough.” And he went to the UN Secretary General to request a referral to the International Court of Justice.
Venezuela's serious mistake was to stubbornly insist to the Secretary General that we wanted to continue bilateral negotiations with the assistance of a mediator.
Since this mechanism did not work, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the SecretaryGeneral, we will understand why he decided in favor of Guyana and not Venezuela.
What Venezuela should have done is to propose mediation, conciliation or arbitration, that is, to resort to other means of peaceful dispute resolution provided for in the UN Charter, which does not include the International Court of Justice, which is more convenient for Guyana.
During mediation, the parties seek a fair and workable solution. At the International Court of Justice the issue is strictly legal. There it is determined whether the arbitration award of 1899 is valid or not. And the proof is very expensive and complicated.
It's a topic we've always wanted to avoid. When something is being decided, judges tend to argue that the matter is closed.
We argue that the Geneva Convention has been signed and therefore a practical solution needs to be sought, but that is exactly what we should have promoted.