Jump to content

User:Alejitao123/sandbox/Copy-edit/Guyana-Venezuela Dispute

Coordinates: 6°18′N 59°42′W / 6.3°N 59.7°W / 6.3; -59.7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Alejitao123

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BD2412 (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 7 July 2024 (→Venezuelan consultative referendum: Fixing links to disambiguation pages and other minor cleanup tasks, replaced: ABC News → ABC News). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Essequibo is in light green, with the rest of Guyana shown in dark green and Venezuela in orange.
Guyana–Venezuela
territorial dispute
History

The Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute is an ongoing territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the Essequibo region, also known as Esequibo or Guayana Esequiba in Spanish (Spanish pronunciation: [ɡwaˈʝana eseˈkiβa] ⓘ),[1] a 159,500 km2 (61,600 sq mi) area west of the Essequibo River. The territory, excluding the Venezuelan-controlled Ankoko Island, is controlled by Guyana as part of six of its regions,[note 1] based on the 1899 Paris Arbitral Award, but is also claimed by Venezuela as the Guayana Esequiba State.[2][page needed][3][4] The boundary dispute was inherited from the colonial powers (Spain in the case of Venezuela, and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in the case of Guyana) and has persisted following the independence of Venezuela and Guyana.

In 1835, the British government commissioned German-born explorer and naturalist Robert Hermann Schomburgk to survey British Guiana's boundaries. This survey resulted in what came to be known as the "Schomburgk Line", which extended beyond the area of British occupation and gave British Guiana control of the mouth of the Orinoco River.[5] These borders were disputed by Venezuela, and tensions worsened after the discovery of gold mines in the region in 1876, culminating with President Antonio Guzmán Blanco severing diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom in 1887. As a result, Venezuela elected the United States as their representative, leaving no Venezuelan citizen to represent their country's interests. The United Kingdom and Venezuela went into arbitration with mediation from the United States, which resulted in the Paris Arbitral Award in 1899 and ruled largely in favor of Britain. In 1949, a memorandum written by Severo Mallet-Prevost, official secretary of the US–Venezuela delegation in the arbitration, and published posthumously, stated that the Arbitral Award resulted from the pressure by the Tribunal President Friedrich Martens and a political deal between Russia and Britain. Said memorandum led to complaints by Venezuela in the United Nations in 1962, which resulted in the Geneva Agreement, signed with the United Kingdom in 1966.

The status of the territory is subject to the Geneva Agreement, which was signed by the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and British Guiana on 17 February 1966. This treaty stipulates that the parties will agree to find a "practical, peaceful, and satisfactory solution" to the dispute.[6] Should there be a stalemate, according to the treaty, the decision as to the means of settlement is to be referred to an "appropriate international organ" or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[6] The Secretary-General referred the entire matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On 18 December 2020, the ICJ accepted the case submitted by Guyana to settle the dispute.[7] In December 2023, Venezuela held a referendum asking the Venezuelan electorate whether the region should become a state of Venezuela and its population become citizens, where it declared that the results showed overwhelming support for such action.[8] No vote was held in the disputed region.[9] Currently, Venezuela claims all of the land west of the Essequibo River, which it refers to as Zona en Reclamación or Zone in Reclamation.[10] Historically, this did not include the tributaries of the Amazon River and the Pirara area which were only ceded to British Guiana in 1904 during arbitration with Brazil. The Northwestern border of the Essequibo follows the 1905 border as established by the British-Venezuelan Mixed Boundary Commission, in accordance with the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899. Venezuela currently seeks to abrogate the legal borders and currently agrees only to the Essequibo River boundary.

Demographics

In 2023, the population of Essequibo was estimated to be around 125 thousand inhabitants, or 15.8% of the total population of Guyana.[11]

Colonial history

Before the arrival of European colonizers, the Guianas were populated by scattered bands of native people. The Warao people are considered to be the first inhabitants of Guyana,[12] followed by the Arawak and Kalina people. The native tribes of the Northern Amazon are most closely related to the natives of the Caribbean; most evidence suggests that the Arawaks immigrated from the Orinoco and Essequibo River Basins in Venezuela and Guiana into the northern islands, and were then supplanted by more warlike tribes of Carib Indians, who departed from these same river valleys a few centuries later.[13] Before other European powers had made excursions into these lands, Spain had already declared ownership of this region, as per the Treaty of Tordesillas. The treaty was not signed nor recognized by other colonialists, such as the Dutch or the English, who inserted themselves into the Guianas between areas claimed by the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire.

15th Century

The first European encounter with the region occurred when the ships of Juan de Esquivel, deputy of Don Diego Columbus, son of Christopher Columbus, arrived in 1498.[14] The region was subsequently named after Esquivel. In 1499, Amerigo Vespucci and Alonso de Ojeda explored the mouths of the Orinoco and were reportedly the first Europeans to venture into the Essequibo region.[14] By 1581, Dutch colonists from Zeeland established a trading post on the banks of the Pomeroon River, marking the beginning of Dutch colonization in the area.[15] This Pomeroon colony eventually merged with the Essequibo colony, becoming a significant trading destination for the Dutch colonial empire until control was transferred to the British Empire.

16th Century

Dutch colonization of the Guianas primarily occurred between the mouths of the Orinoco River in the west and the Amazon River in the east. Although the Dutch presence in the Guianas was noted by the late 1500s, many early documents regarding Dutch discoveries in the region were lost. By the 1570s, reports emerged of Dutch involvement in trade in the Guianas, although scant evidence exists. At this time, neither the Portuguese nor the Spanish had established any settlements in the area. In 1596, a Dutch fort was constructed at the mouth of the Essequibo River on an island, but it was destroyed by the Spanish later that year.[16]

Dutch interest in exploring the Guianas increased following the publication of The Discovery of Guiana by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1597. A Dutch expedition launched on 3 December 1597 from Brielle, traversing the coasts between the Amazon and Orinoco. The expedition, documented by A. Cabeljau, provided more realistic information about the region compared to Raleigh's account, revealing Dutch travels along the Orinoco and Caroní rivers and the discovery of numerous previously unknown lands. Cabeljau reported positive interactions with native populations and friendly encounters with the Spanish in San Tomé. By 1598, Dutch ships were frequenting Guiana in efforts to establish settlements.[16]

17th Century

A 1625 map by Hessel Gerritsz, showing Dutch territory (in yellow) ranging from the Orinoco River to the Amazon River
Ruins of Fort Kyk-Over-Al, constructed by the Dutch in 1616

Another Dutch fort, supported by indigenous groups, was established at the mouth of the Essequibo River in 1613, only to be destroyed by the Spanish in November of the same year. In 1616, Dutch ship captain Aert Adriaenszoon Groenewegen founded Fort Kyk-Over-Al, situated 20 miles downstream on the Essequibo River. Groenewegen, who married the daughter of an indigenous chief, controlled the Dutch colony for nearly fifty years until his death in 1664.[16]

To protect the Araya salt flats, known as the "white gold" of the time, from incursions by English, French, and Dutch forces, the Spanish Crown ordered the construction of a military fortress. Completed in the early part of 1625, the fortress was named Real Fuerza de Santiago de Arroyo de Araya, with Santiago representing the patron saint of Spain, Arroyo named after Governor Diego de Arroyo Daza, and Araya denoting the location. It was the first significant fortress of the Captaincy of Venezuela. Over the years, concerns arose within the Spanish Crown about the high costs associated with maintaining the fortress, particularly after sustaining damage from an earthquake in 1684 and subsequent flooding from a hurricane in 1725.

By 1637, Spanish reports indicated Dutch presence in settlements along the Amacuro, Essequibo, and Berbis rivers, with alliances formed with indigenous Aruac and Carib populations. Dutch forts were reported from Cape North at the Amazon River to the mouth of the Orinoco River by 1639. Captain Groenewegen was credited with keeping both Spanish and Portuguese settlements at bay.[16]

During a speech to the Parliament of England on 21 January 1644, English settlers who had explored the Guianas asserted that the Dutch, English, and Spanish had long sought to discover El Dorado in the region. The Dutch were noted for their expertise in navigating the Orinoco River over many years, leading to subsequent encounters with the Spanish, who later restricted Dutch access to the river.[17]

In 1648, Spain signed the Peace of Münster with the Dutch Republic, recognizing the Republic's independence and conceding small Dutch possessions east of the Essequibo River. However, in the decades following the treaty, the Dutch gradually expanded west of the Essequibo River into the Spanish Guayana Province. These new settlements faced regular challenges and destruction by Spanish authorities.[18]

Significant Dutch colonization west of the Essequibo began in the early 1650s, coinciding with the establishment of the Pomeroon colony between the Moruka and Pomeroon rivers. Many of these settlers were Dutch-Brazilian Jews who had migrated from Pernambuco. By 1673, Dutch settlements extended as far as the Barima River.[16]

18th Century

A 1775 map of the Americas by Rigobert Bonne.
Map depicting Dutch colonies of Essequibo and Demerara in 1798.

In 1732, the Swedes attempted to settle[19] between the Low Orinoco and the Barima River.[20] However, by 1737, Major Sergeant Carlos Francisco de Sucre y Pardo (the grandfather of Antonio de Sucre) expelled them from the forts at Barima,[21] thwarting the Swedish colonization attempt for the time being.[22][23] By 1745, the Dutch held several territories in the region, including Essequibo, Demerara, Berbice, and Surinam.[14] Dutch settlements were also established on the Cuyuni River, Caroní River and Moruka River.[24] Domingos, Bandeira Jerónimo, and Roque described Essequibo and Demerara as "sophisticated and promising slave colonies".[24]

When Spain established the Captaincy General of Venezuela in 1777 under Charles III, the Essequibo River was reaffirmed as the natural border between Spanish territory and the Dutch colony of Essequibo.[25] In a report dated 10 July 1788, Spanish authorities officially claimed against Dutch expansion into their territory, proposing a border:[26]

It has been stated that the south bank of the Orinoco from the point of Barima, 20 leagues more or less inland, up to the creek of Curucima, is low-lying and swampy land and, consequently, reckoning all this tract as useless, very few patches of fertile land being found therein, and hardly any savannahs and pastures, it is disregarded; so taking as chief base the said creek of Curucima, or the point of the chain and ridge in the great arm of the Imataka, an imaginary line will be drawn running to the south-south-east following the slopes of the ridge of the same name which is crossed by the rivers Aguire, Arature and Amacuro, and others, in the distance of 20 leagues, direct to the Cuyuni; from there it will run on to the Masaruni and Essequibo, parallel to the sources of the Berbis and Surinama; this is the directing line of the course which the new Settlements and foundations proposed must follow.

Dutch slaves in Essequibo and Demerara recognized the Orinoco River as the boundary between Spanish and Dutch Guiana, often attempting to cross the Orinoco to live with increased, though limited, liberties in Spanish Guiana.[24][27]

19th Century

Under the terms of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814, the Dutch colonies of Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo were ceded to the United Kingdom. The Dutch had steadfastly defended the territory from British, French, and Spanish encroachments for nearly two centuries,[14] often forming alliances with indigenous peoples in the region who provided intelligence on Spanish incursions and escaped slaves.[24] According to scholar Allan Brewer Carías, the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 did not establish a western border for what would later become known as British Guiana. Thus, explorer Robert Schomburgk was later tasked with delineating a border.[25]

An 1855 map of Venezuela depicting British Guiana, the entire Essequibo region, and New Granada.

Following the establishment of Gran Colombia in 1819, territorial disputes arose between Gran Colombia (later Venezuela) and the British.[28] In 1822, José Rafael Revenga, Minister Plenipotentiary of Gran Colombia to Britain, conveyed to the British government, on behalf of Simón Bolívar, concerns about British settlers encroaching upon Venezuelan territory: "The colonists of Demerara and Berbice have usurped a large portion of land, which according to recent treaties between Spain and Holland, belongs to our country at the west of the Essequibo River. It is absolutely essential that these settlers be brought under the jurisdiction of our laws or be removed to their former possessions."[29]

In 1824, Venezuela appointed José Manuel Hurtado as its new Ambassador to Britain. He officially presented Venezuela's claim to the border at the Essequibo River to the British government, which did not raise objections.[30] However, the British government persisted in promoting colonization west of the Essequibo River in the ensuing years. In 1831, Britain merged the former Dutch territories of Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo into a single colony, British Guiana.

Schomburgk Line

Under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society, the German-born explorer and naturalist, Robert Hermann Schomburgk, undertook botanical and geographical exploration of British Guiana in 1835. This culminated in a sketch of the territory with a line demarcating what he believed to be the Dutch's western boundary. Subsequently, in 1840, he was commissioned by the British government to survey the boundaries of Guiana. This survey resulted in what became known as the "Schomburgk Line".[31][32] The line extended well beyond the area of British occupation, giving British Guiana control of the mouth of the Orinoco River.[33] However, Schomburgk asserted that it did not encompass all the territory that Britain could legitimately claim.[citation needed]

Venezuela contested Schomburgk's placement of border markers at the Orinoco River and, in 1844, laid claim to all of Guiana west of the Essequibo River.[citation needed] In the same year, a British proposal to Venezuela to adjust the border, granting Venezuela full control of the mouth of the Orinoco River and adjacent territory, went unheeded.[citation needed] In 1850, Britain and Venezuela reached an agreement not to colonize the disputed territory, though the precise boundaries were left undefined.[31]

Schomburgk's initial sketch, published in 1840, remained the sole version of the "Schomburgk Line" until 1886, leading to later allegations by US President Grover Cleveland that the line had been extended "in some mysterious way

"[citation needed].[31]

Gold Discoveries

A map of the United States of Venezuela by L. Robelin 1890, showing Venezuela's historical claim to the region.

The dispute remained dormant for many years until the discovery of gold in the region sparked tensions between the United Kingdom and Venezuela.[34] In 1876, gold mines predominantly populated by English speakers were established in the Cuyuni basin, which lay within Venezuelan territory beyond the Schomburgk Line but within the area Schomburgk believed Britain could claim.[citation needed] That same year, Venezuela reaffirmed its claim up to the Essequibo River. In response, the British countered with a claim encompassing the entire Cuyuni basin, though this was merely a theoretical assertion that Britain had no intention of pursuing.[31]

On 21 February 1881, Venezuela proposed a frontier line commencing one mile north of the Moruka River, extending westward to the 60th meridian, and then south along that meridian. This proposal would have awarded Venezuela the Barima District.[citation needed]

In October 1886, Britain declared the Schomburgk Line as the provisional boundary of British Guiana, prompting Venezuela to sever diplomatic ties in February 1887. In 1894, Venezuela appealed to the United States for intervention, citing the Monroe Doctrine as justification. While the United States was reluctant to intervene directly, it did suggest the possibility of arbitration.[31]

Venezuela Crisis of 1895

Main article: Venezuelan Crisis of 1895

The longstanding dispute escalated into a diplomatic crisis in 1895 when Venezuela hired William Lindsay Scruggs as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C.. Scruggs argued Venezuela's case, asserting that British actions violated the Monroe Doctrine. He successfully persuaded the US government to accept this claim and intervene. President Grover Cleveland interpreted the Doctrine broadly, asserting American interests throughout the hemisphere beyond just prohibiting new European colonies.[35] British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury and British ambassador to the US Lord Pauncefote underestimated the importance the American government placed on the dispute.[36][37] The central issue of the crisis was Britain's refusal to include the territory east of the Schomburgk Line in the proposed international arbitration. Ultimately, Britain acquiesced and tacitly acknowledged the US right to intervene under the Monroe Doctrine. US intervention compelled Britain to agree to arbitration of the entire disputed territory.[citation needed]

Treaty of Washington and Arbitration

Main article: Paris Arbitral Award
An 1897 map showing territorial claims by British Guiana, including the western boundary ceded to Venezuela.

The Treaty of Arbitration between the UK and Venezuela was signed in Washington on 2 February 1897. This treaty delineated the legal framework for arbitration, with its first article stating that "An Arbitral Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to determine the boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela."

The Treaty laid out the procedural and legal conditions for the Tribunal to address and establish a border. Its third article mandated that "The Tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the territories belonging to, or that might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony of British Guiana, and shall determine the boundary line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela.". The Treaty also outlined the rules and principles guiding the Tribunal in demarcating the border.[38]

Venezuela contended that Spain, from whom they acquired the territory, controlled land from the Orinoco River to the Amazon River in present-day Brazil.[33] According to Venezuela, Spain only transferred its claimed Guiana territory to the Dutch, which did not encompass much land within the disputed area.[33] Conversely, Britain, having acquired the Dutch territory, argued that the contested Guiana region was not under Spanish control due to its remoteness and lack of oversight, asserting that the indigenous peoples inhabiting the land had shared it with the Dutch rather than the Spanish, thus falling under Dutch and British influence.[33]

The competing claims were presented to a tribunal consisting of five arbitrators: two from Britain, two from the US (representing Venezuela's interests), and one from Russia, assumed to be neutral. The US represented Venezuela on the panel partly because the Venezuelan government had severed diplomatic ties with Britain.[39] Venezuela reiterated its claim to the district immediately west of the Essequibo River and proposed that the boundary extend from the mouth of the Moruka River southwards to the Cuyuni River, near its confluence with the Mazaruni River, and then along the eastern bank of the Essequibo to the Brazilian border.

On 3 October 1899, the Tribunal ruled largely in favor of Britain. The Schomburgk Line was established as the border between British Guiana and Venezuela, with two deviations. Venezuela received Barima Point at the mouth of the Orinoco, granting it undisputed control of the river and the authority to levy duties on Venezuelan commerce. The second deviation placed the border at the Wenamu River instead of the Cuyuni River, awarding Venezuela significant territory east of the line. However, Britain acquired most of the disputed territory and all of the gold mines.[40]

Venezuelan representatives protested the outcome, alleging that Britain had unduly influenced the Russian tribunal member's decision. However, these protests were largely confined to domestic political circles and international diplomatic arenas. [citation needed]

Immediate Reactions

Finalized boundary between Venezuelan and British territories, legally established in 1905 following the Arbitral Award of 1899.

Immediately after the arbitration ruling in 1899, the U.S. counsels for Venezuela, former U.S. President Benjamin Harrison, Severo Mallet-Prevost, Benjamin F. Tracy, James R. Soley, and José María Rojas, were jointly interviewed and expressed their initial objections to the ruling:

"Great Britain, up to the time of the intervention of the United States, distinctly refused to arbitrate any portion of the territory east of the Schomburgk line, alleging that its title was unassailable. This territory included the Attacuri River[further explanation needed] and Point Barima, which is of the greatest value strategically and commercially. The award gives Point Barima, with a strip of land fifty miles long, to Venezuela, which thereby obtains entire control of the Orinoco River. Three thousand square miles in the interior are also awarded to Venezuela. Thus, by a decision in which the British arbitrators concurred, the position taken by Great Britain in 1895 is shown to be unfounded [...] The President of the tribunal in his closing address today had commented upon the unanimity of the present judgment and had referred to it as a proof of the success of the arbitration, but it did not require much intelligence to penetrate behind this superficial statement and to see that the line drawn is a line of compromise and not a line of right. If the British contention was right, the line should have been drawn further west; if it were wrong, the line should have been drawn much further east. There was nothing in the history of the controversy, nor in the legal principle involved, which could adequately explain why the line should be drawn where it had been. So long as arbitration was conducted on such principles, it could not be regarded as a success, at least by those who believe that arbitration should result in the admission of legal rights and not in compromises really diplomatic in character. Venezuela had gained much, but was entitled to much more, and if the arbitrators were unanimous, it must be because their failure to agree would have confirmed Great Britain in the possession of even more territory".[41]

The Venezuelan government showed almost immediate disapproval of the 1899 Arbitral Award. As early as 7 October 1899, Venezuela voiced its condemnation of the Award and demanded the renegotiation of its eastern border with British Guiana. On that day, Venezuelan Foreign Minister José Andrade stated that the Arbitral Award was the product of political collusion and should not be adhered to by Venezuela.[42][43] In accordance with the 1899 Arbitral Award, a mixed British-Venezuelan Boundary Commission began work in 1900 to demarcate the border. Representing Venezuela, Abraham Tirado and Elias Toro surveyed the boundary area in accordance with the Award, alongside two British surveyors, all of whom signed off on the border in 1905.

20th Century

Renewed Dispute

On 26 October 1899, in a letter to a colleague, Severo Mallet-Prevost, the Official Secretary of the US–Venezuela delegation in the Tribunal of Arbitration, stated that the Arbitral Award was the result of pressures brought on the judges by the President of the Tribunal, Friedrich Martens.[44]

Map of Guyana, showing the Essequibo River and (shaded dark) the river's drainage basin. Venezuela claims territory up to the western bank of the river. The historical claim by the UK included the river basin well into current-day Venezuela.

After numerous bilateral diplomatic attempts failed to convince the United Kingdom of its seriousness to nullify the award, Venezuela denounced it before the first assembly of the United Nations in 1945.[42][43]

In 1949, the US jurist Otto Schoenrich gave the Venezuelan government a memorandum written by Mallet-Prevost, which was written in 1944 to be published only after his death. Mallet-Prevost surmised from the private behavior of the judges that there had been a political deal between Russia and Britain,[44] and said that the Russian chair of the panel, Friedrich Martens, had visited Britain with the two British arbitrators in the summer of 1899, and subsequently had offered the two American judges a choice between accepting a unanimous award along the lines ultimately agreed, or a 3 to 2 majority opinion even more favourable to the British. The alternative would have followed the Schomburgk Line entirely, and given the mouth of the Orinoco to the British. Mallet-Prevost said that the American judges and Venezuelan counsel were disgusted at the situation and considered the 3 to 2 option with a strongly worded minority opinion, but ultimately went along with Martens to avoid depriving Venezuela of even more territory.[44] This memorandum provided further motives for Venezuela's contentions that there had in fact been a political deal between the British judges and the Russian judge at the Arbitral Tribunal, and led to Venezuela's revival of its claim to the disputed territory.[45][46]

By the 1950s, Venezuelan media led grassroots movements demanding the acquisition of the Essequibo.[34] Under the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez, the Venezuelan government began plans to invade the Essequibo.[47] President Pérez Jiménez anticipated the invasion of Guyana in 1958, but was ultimately overthrown in the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état before this was finalized.[47]

United Nations General Assembly Complaint

Venezuela formally raised the issue again at an international level before the United Nations in 1962, four years before Guyana won independence from Britain.[34] On 12 November 1962, Venezuelan foreign minister Marcos Falcón Briceño [es] gave an exposition in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to denounce the 1899 Paris Tribunal Arbitration, citing the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum [es]. Briceño argued that collusion and nullity vices led to the favorable ruling. In his exposition, he stressed that Venezuela considered the Paris Arbitration as null and void because of "acts contrary to good faith" of the British government and the Tribunal members. Said complaints led to the 1966 Geneva Agreement.[citation needed] Venezuela also identified several improprieties and vices in the ruling, especially Ultra Vires. It claimed that the referees exceeded the scope of powers granted by the arbitration treaty in 1897[citation needed] when it drew the border between British Guiana, Brazil, and Suriname, and also decreed freedom of navigation in the Amacuro and Barima rivers.

The Venezuelan claim of the nullity of the 1899 ruling has been acknowledged by several foreign scholars and jurists, such as J. Gillis Wetter of Sweden, in his work The International Arbitral Process (1979), awarded by the American Society of International Law. After searching the British official archives, Wetter found further evidence of collusion between Britain and Russia, concluding that the ruling was marred by serious procedural and substantive defects, and that it was more a political compromise than a court ruling. Uruguayan jurist Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, former president of the International Court of Justice, came to similar conclusions.[citation needed]

Geneva Agreement

At a meeting in Geneva on 17 February 1966, the governments of British Guiana, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela signed the "Agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana", best known thereafter as the Geneva Agreement of 1966. The agreement established the regulatory framework to be followed by the parties to resolve the issue. According to the agreement, a Mixed Commission was installed to seek satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the border controversy.[48] However, the parties never agreed to implement a solution within this Commission due to differing interpretations of the agreement:

  • Guyana argued that, before starting the negotiations over the border issue, Venezuela should prove that the Arbitral Award of 1899 was null and void. Guyana did not accept that the 1899 decision was invalid, and held that its participation on the commission was only to resolve Venezuela's assertions.
  • Venezuela argued that the Commission did not have a juridical nature or purpose but a deal-making one, so it should go ahead to find "a practical and satisfactory solution", as agreed in the treaty. Venezuela also claimed that the nullity of the Arbitral Award of 1899 was implicit, as otherwise, the existence of the 1966 agreement would be meaningless.

The fifth article of the Geneva Agreement established the status of the disputed territories. The provisions state that no acts or activities taking place on the disputed territories while the Agreement is in force "shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty." The agreement also has a provision prohibiting both nations from pursuing the issue except through official inter-government channels.

In its note of recognition of the independence of Guyana on 26 May 1966, Venezuela stated:

Venezuela recognises as territory of the new State the one which is located on the east of the right bank of the Essequibo River, and reiterates before the new State, and before the international community, that it expressly reserves its rights of territorial sovereignty over all the zone located on the west bank of the above-mentioned river. Therefore, the Guyana-Essequibo territory over which Venezuela expressly reserves its sovereign rights, limits on the east by the new State of Guyana, through the middle line of the Essequibo River, beginning from its source and on to its mouth in the Atlantic Ocean.

Guyanese Independence and the Occupation of Ankoko Island

Five months after Guyana's independence, Venezuelan troops began their occupation of Ankoko Island and surrounding islands in October 1966, with Venezuelan troops quickly constructing military installations and an airstrip.[47] Subsequently, on the morning of 14 October 1966, Forbes Burnham, as Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs of Guyana, dispatched a protest to the Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Ignacio Iribarren Borges [es], demanding the immediate withdrawal of Venezuelan troops and the removal of installations they had established.[49] Venezuelan Minister Ignacio Iribarren Borges replied, stating "the Government of Venezuela rejects the aforementioned protest because Anacoco Island is Venezuelan territory in its entirety, and the Republic of Venezuela has always been in possession of it."[49] The island remained under Venezuelan administration, where a Venezuelan airport and a military base operated.[50]

Rupununi Uprising

Main article: Rupununi uprising
The police station in Lethem, damaged by rebel bazooka fire during the Rupununi uprising

The rebellion was primarily led by ranch owners in the Rupununi district who thought their land rights would be revoked by the new government of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham following the 1968 Guyanese general election.[51] The Guyanese government was in the process of creating a commission for issuing land certificates to indigenous families in the area, though the review of 20,000 square miles (52,000 km2) of land was required.[52]

At a 23 December 1968 meeting, rebels finalized plans for a separated Rupununi state.[53] Venezuela reportedly supported and equipped the Rupununi rebels and their secession movement.[54] Valerie Hart stayed in the capital of Venezuela, Caracas, while her brothers and the Lawrences participated in the rebellion in Guyana.[55] Rebels armed with machine guns and bazookas began their attacks on Lethem on 2 January 1969, first attacking a police station, killing five police officers along with two civilians while the rebels destroyed buildings belonging to the Guyanese government with bazooka fire.[52][56] The rebels locked citizens in their homes and blocked airfields in Lethem, Annai Good Hope, Karanambo, and Karasabai, attempting to block staging areas for Guyanese troops.[53]

News about the insurrection reached Georgetown by midday, prompting the deployment of policemen and soldiers of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF).[53] GDF troops arrived at an open airstrip 5 miles (8.0 km) away from Lethem. As Guyanese soldiers made their approach to the town, the rebels quickly fled, ending the uprising.[53] Academic accounts reported that two or three Amerindians were killed, while rumors reported up to 70 dead.[57]

Rebels detained following their attempted rebellion in Rupununi

The Guyanese government accused Venezuela of assisting the rebels,[58][52][59] accusations that the Venezuelan government rejected.[60][61] Members of the failed uprising fled to Venezuela for protection after their plans unraveled, with Valerie Hart and her rebels being granted Venezuelan citizenship by birth since they were recognized as being born in the Essequibo disputed territory.[62] The ranchers who organized the rebellion were settled into the Gran Sabana region by the Venezuelan government.[57] On 6 January 1969, Hart was expelled from the United Force, with the political party saying that she was involved "with the rebellion and plot by a foreign power."[59]

Guyana charged 57 individuals with murder.[57] Of the 28 rebels arrested, 18 were released on 24 January 1969 after having their murder charges dropped[59][63] while the ten remaining individuals were released later.[57] In late February to early March 1969, Amerindian leaders met with Prime Minister Burnham to declare loyalty to the Guyanese government and condemn the reported involvement of Venezuela.[53]

Some Amerindians relocated as a result of the rebellion.[57]

Port of Spain Protocol

In 1970, after the expiration of the Mixed Commission established according to the Geneva Agreement of 1966, Presidents Rafael Caldera and Forbes Burnham signed the Port of Spain Protocol. The signed protocol declared a 12-year moratorium on Venezuela's reclamation of the Essequibo to allow both governments to promote cooperation and understanding while the border claim was in abeyance. The protocol was formally signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela Aristides Calvani, Guyanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Shridath Ramphal and British High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago Roland Hunte.[64] The Parliament of Guyana voted for the agreement on 22 June 1970, with only People's Progressive Party voting against believing that the United Nations should resolve the matter.[64] MPs from almost all parties in the Parliament of Venezuela voiced their sharp criticism of the agreement.[64] Venezuelan maps produced since 1970 show the entire area from the eastern bank of the Essequibo, including the islands in the river, as Venezuelan territory. On some maps, the western Essequibo region is called the "Zone in Reclamation".[65]

In November 1978, more than 900 members of the Peoples Temple cult committed suicide or were forced to commit suicide at Jonestown, a cult settlement which was located in the region.

During the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982, Venezuela shared renewed interest to its territorial claims.[66] At the time, a high-level general of the Brazilian Armed Forces warned Venezuela not to attempt any action against Guyana, saying that it would immediately result in a response from the United Kingdom and the United States.[66] Months before the expiration of the Port of Spain Protocol, prominent Venezuelan politician and former interior minister Reinaldo Leandro Mora said in an interview with Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional that if Guyana attempted to develop parts of the Essequibo, that Venezuela would have to "abandon the channels of peaceful negotiation which our national government aspires to and turn to methods involving action."[66]

In 1983, when the Port of Spain Protocol expired, the Venezuelan President Luis Herrera Campins decided to not extend it, resuming his country's effective claim over the territory. Since then, the contacts between Venezuela and Guyana within the provisions of the Treaty of Geneva are under the recommendations of a UN Secretary General's representative which can occasionally be changed with the agreement of both parties.[6] While diplomatic contacts between the two countries and the Secretary General's representative continue, there have been some clashes. The latest personal representative in these efforts is the Norwegian Dag Nylander, appointed in March 2017 by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

21st century

Chávez administration

Venezuela adopted an eight-starred flag in 2006, with the additional star representing the former Guayana Province

President Hugo Chávez eased border tensions with Guyana under advice of his mentor Fidel Castro.[67] In 2004, Chávez said, during a visit in Georgetown, Guyana, that he considered the dispute to be finished.[67]

The 2006 changes to the flag of Venezuela included the addition of an eighth star to represent the previously existing Guayana Province[68] and was seen as an attempt for Chávez to establish his legacy.[69]

Map of Venezuela, showing the maritime areas in blue and the Essequibo in gray.

In September 2011, Guyana made an application before the United Nations' [[Commission on the Limits of the Continental 

Shelf]] in order to extend its continental shelf by a further 150 nautical miles (280 km; 170 mi). Since the Commission requests that the areas to be considered cannot be subject to any kind of territorial disputes, the Guyanese application disregarded the Venezuelan claim over the Essequibo, by saying that "there are no disputes in the region relevant to this submission of data and information relating to the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles [370 km; 230 mi]."[70] Venezuela sent an objection to the commission, rejecting the Guyanese application and warning that Guyana had proposed a limit for its continental shelf including "the territory west of the Essequibo river, which is the subject of a territorial sovereignty dispute under the Geneva Agreement of 1966 and, within this framework, a matter for the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations". Venezuela also said that Guyana consulted its neighbours Barbados, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago before making the application, but did not do the same with Venezuela. "Such a lack of consultation with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, serious in itself in that it violates the relevant rules, is inexplicable in so far as the coast whose projection is used by the Republic of Guyana in its attempt to extend the limits forms part of the disputed territory over which Venezuela demands and reiterates its claim to sovereignty rights", said the Venezuelan communiqué.[71]

Oil discovery in Guyana

On 10 October 2013, the Venezuelan Navy detained an oil exploration vessel conducting seafloor surveys on behalf of the government of Guyana. The ship and its crew were escorted to the Venezuelan Margarita Island to be prosecuted. The Guyanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the vessel was in Guyanese waters,[72] but its Venezuelan counterpart sent a diplomatic note to Guyana stating that the ship was conducting oil research in Venezuelan waters with no authorization from the country, and demanded an explanation.[73] The vessel, Teknik Perdana, together with its crew, was released the next week, but its captain was charged with violating the Venezuelan exclusive economic zone.[74]

Despite diplomatic protests from Venezuela, the government of Guyana awarded the American oil corporation ExxonMobil a license to drill for oil in the disputed maritime area in early 2016.[75] In May, the government of Guyana announced that ExxonMobil had indeed found promising results in their first round of drilling on the so-called Stabroek Block, an area offshore the Essequibo territory with a size of 26,800 km2 (10,300 sq mi). The company announced that further drillings would take place in the coming months to better evaluate the potential of the oil field.[76] Venezuela responded to the declaration with a decree issued on 27 May 2015, including the maritime area in dispute in its national marine protection sphere, thus extending the area that the Venezuelan Navy controls into the disputed area. This, in turn, caused the government of Guyana to summon the Venezuelan ambassador for further explanation.[77] The tensions have further intensified since and Guyana withdrew the operating license of Conviasa, the Venezuelan national airline, stranding a plane and passengers in Georgetown.[78]

On 7 January 2021, there was the issuance of Decree No. 4415 by the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, with the support of Venezuela's National Assembly, which seeks to reinforce Venezuela's claim to Guyana's Essequibo Region and its attendant maritime space.[79]

International Court of Justice

In the case that by December 2017, the UN understood that there was no "significant progress" in resolving the dispute, the Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres would intend to refer the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), unless the two countries explicitly requested it not to do so. In January 2018, Guterres concluded that the Good Offices Process had not determined a peaceful conclusion[80] and the UN referred the case.[81] Guterres chose to have the controversy settled by the ICJ on whether the 1899 award was valid.[80] On 29 March, Guyana gave a request to the ICJ to solve the territorial dispute.[82] Venezuela proposed that Guyana restore the diplomatic contacts to attempt to find a solution regarding the territorial dispute, arguing that Guterres "exceeded the competences given to him as the Good Offices Figure" and that the decision "contravenes the spirit, purpose and reason of the Geneva Agreement".[83] The Venezuelan government also stated that it did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court as mandatory.[84] On 19 June, Guyana announced that it would ask the Court to rule in their favor, citing Article 53 of the ICJ Statute, which states that "if any of the two parties does not appear before the tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party has the right to communicate with the court and to rule in favor of its claim".[85][86] In July 2018, the government of Venezuela, led by Nicolás Maduro, argued that the ICJ did not hold jurisdiction over the dispute and stated that Venezuela would not participate in the proceedings.[87][88] The Court stated that Guyana would have until 19 November to present its arguments and Venezuela would have until 18 April 2019 to present its counterarguments.[89] During the Venezuelan presidential crisis, disputed acting President Juan Guaidó and the pro-opposition National Assembly of Venezuela ratified the territorial dispute over the territory.[67] The oral audiences were planned to take place from 23 to 27 March 2020,[90] in which the ICJ would determine if they held jurisdiction in the dispute; however, this was delayed indefinitely due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.[91] Venezuela did not take part in the hearings which were rescheduled for 30 June.[92][93] On 18 December 2020, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction and accepted the case.[94]: 2  On 8 March 2021, Venezuela was given until 8 March 2023 to submit a counter-memorial.[94]: 3 

On 18 September 2020, the United States announced that it would join Guyana on sea patrols in the area.[95] The first agreement in the negotiations between the Maduro government and the Venezuelan opposition in Mexico in September 2021 was to act jointly in the claim of Venezuelan sovereignty over Essequibo.[96] The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction to determine the territorial dispute in April 2023.[97]

Venezuelan consultative referendum

Main articles: Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present) and 2023 Venezuelan referendum
Among his decrees shortly after the referendum, Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro ordered the publication of a new map, including the Esequibo territory, "in all schools, public entities, universities and 'in all homes' in the country"[98]

On 31 October 2023, the government of Guyana filed a request with the ICJ requesting intervention against a proposed referendum approved by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council on 23 October 2023,[99] asking to support its position in the dispute, arguing that the referendum served as a pretext for the Venezuelan government to abandon negotiations with Guyana.[100] The proposed referendum was condemned by the Commonwealth of Nations and Caribbean Community (CARICOM), who both issued statements in support of Guyana and the agreed ICJ process for dispute resolution.[101][102] In response to the increased tensions, the Brazilian military on 29 November 2023 "intensified defensive actions" along its northern border.[103] On 1 December 2023, the ICJ ordered Venezuela to not make any attempts to disrupt the current territory controlled by Guyana until the court makes a later determination.[104] The referendum took place on 3 December, and the National Electoral Council initially reported that Venezuelans voted "yes" more than 95% of the time on each of the five questions on the ballot.[105]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

There has been no similar consultation conducted, by either Venezuela or Guyana, with the indigenous people of the region.[9]

Venezuelan Administrative Laws

According to some interpretations of Venezuelan legislation, Essequiba Guyana is an integral part of the jurisdiction of the states of Bolívar and Delta Amacuro, whose common boundary runs along the cusp of the Imataka mountain range.[106][107] The state of Bolívar, in its constitution, establishes the following:

Template:Cita

The original territory of what is now the state of Delta Amacuro extends from the Orinoco delta to the Esequibo River. The information website of the governor's office of this state states the following about its territoriality:

Template:Cita

Historically in Venezuela, the central power (government and other Venezuelan state agencies) has been directly in charge of the treatment of the case of Guayana Esequiba, leaving the local governors' and mayors' offices with very little participation and power of action. A special and differentiated treatment is given to the jurisdictions of these national states, which do not usually include in their maps their territorial portion within the Guayana Esequiba, although in the national maps of the country the inclusion of the area under claim is mandatory. This has led some people to erroneously think that the Guayana Esequiba is a new Venezuelan state or federal territory.[108]

In 1999, when the new Venezuelan magna carta was enacted, Article 10 of the Constitution of the Venezuela established the following as Venezuelan territory:[109]

Template:Cita

In August 2015, some deputies of the Venezuelan National Assembly[51] proposed the creation of state number 25 (Estado Esequibo)[51] uniting the territory of Guayana Esequiba (159,500 square kilometers) and the Sifontes Municipality (24,393 square kilometers), with capital in Tumeremo,[51] the latter territory currently under the jurisdiction of the state of Bolivar. The proposal was officially introduced before the secretariat of the National Assembly, but was not approved.[51]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Barima-Waini, Pomeroon-Supenaam, Essequibo Islands-West Demerara, Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Potaro-Siparuni and Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo

References

  1. ^ * "Venezuela says voters back claim to oil-rich swath of Guyana". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 9 December 2023. Retrieved 16 December 2023. 'Guayana Esequiba', as the disputed region is known in Venezuela.
  2. ^ British Guiana Boundary: Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela. The Case (and Appendix) on Behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty Archived 8 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine Volume 7. Printed at the Foreign office, by Harrison and sons, 1898.
  3. ^ "Caribbean Nations Have High Hopes For the Biden-Harris Administration". South Florida Caribbean News. 2021-01-20. Archived from the original on 17 June 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-20.
  4. ^ Boadle, Anthony; Gaier, Rodrigo Viga; Boadle, Anthony (2023-12-06). [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-sees-no-risk-armed-conflict-between-guyana-venezuela-minister-2023-12- 06/ "Brazil urging Venezuela to avoid force or threats against Guyana, says Lula aide"]. Reuters. Archived from the original on 9 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-07. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 117 (help)
  5. ^ Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. "Venezuela Boundary Dispute, 1895–1899". 2001-2009.state.gov. Archived from the original on 22 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-22.
  6. ^ a b c Agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (Treaty of Geneva, 1966) Archived 16 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine from UN
  7. ^ "Summary of the Judgement of 18 December 2020" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 May 2023. Retrieved 27 December 2022.
  8. ^ "Maduro firma decretos para anexar a Venezuela el territorio en disputa con Guyana". El Sureño (in Spanish). 9 December 2023. Archived from the original on 9 December 2023. Retrieved 9 December 2023.
  9. ^ a b "Venezuela's planned vote over territory dispute leaves Guyana residents on edge". AP News. 2023-11-29. Archived from the original on 6 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-06.
  10. ^ "Venezuela-Guyana: qué riquezas hay en el Esequibo, el territorio que se disputan ambos países desde hace casi dos siglos". BBC News Mundo (in Spanish). 2023-11-24. Archived from the original on 6 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-08.
  11. ^ "Historia y disputas entre el Reino Unido, Guyana y Venezuela por el Esequibo". CNN en Español. 2 December 2023. Archived from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
  12. ^ Edwards, W.; Gibson, K. (1979). "An Ethnohistory of Amerindians in Guyana". Ethnohistory. 26 (2): 163–164. doi:10.2307/481091. ISSN 0014-1801. JSTOR 481091. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  13. ^ Ian Rogoziński, A Brief History of the Caribbean, from the Arawak and Carib to the Present (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1999); Paul Radin, Indians of South America (New York: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1942); and J. H. Parry, The Discovery of South America (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1979).
  14. ^ a b c d The Statesman's Yearbook 2017: The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World (153 ed.). Springer Publishing. 28 February 2017. p. 566. ISBN 978-1349683987.
  15. ^ "De menschetende aanbidders der zonneslang". Digital Library for Dutch Literature (in Dutch). 1907. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
  16. ^ a b c d e Goslinga, Cornelis (1971). The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
  17. ^ Osborne, Thomas (1747). A Collection of Voyages and Travels: Consisting of Authentic Writers in Our Own Tongue. pp. 749–755.
  18. ^ Brewer-Carias, Allan R. (12 May 2023). [https://allanbrewercarias.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BREWER-C ARIAS.-DERECHOS-TERRITORIALES-DE-VENEZUELA-SOBRE-EL-ESEQUIBO-Y-LA-NULIDAD-DEL-LAUDO-ARBITRAL-DE-1899.-5-2023-Port.pdf Derechos de Venezuela sobre el territorio Esequibo] (PDF). Academia de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales. Editorial Jurídica Venezolana. p. 109. ISBN 979-8-88895-778-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2023. Retrieved 5 December 2023. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 66 (help)
  19. ^ "Boundary Between British Guiana and Venezuela: Case Presented on the Part of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty to the Tribunal of Arbitration Constituted Under Article I of the Treaty Concluded at Washington on the 2nd February, 1897, Between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of Venezuela". 1899. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
  20. ^ "The Swedish Pioneer Historical Quarterly". 1960. Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
  21. ^ "Carlos Sucre y Pardo | Real Academia de la Historia". Archived from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 7 March 2021.
  22. ^ "Historisk tidskrift". 1899. Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
  23. ^ Civrieux, Jean-Marc de (1976). "Los caribes y la conquista de la Guayana española: Etnohistoria kari'ña". Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
  24. ^ a b c d Domingos, Nuno; Bandeira Jerónimo, Miguel; Roque, Ricardo (2019). Resistance and colonialism : insurgent peoples in world history. Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-3030191672.
  25. ^ a b "¿Cuál es la historia detrás del conflicto territorial de la Zona en Reclamación?". Prodavinci (in Spanish). 2015-04-09. Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  26. ^ [citation needed]
  27. ^ Bram Hoonhout, Thomas Mareite, "Freedom at the Fringes? Slave Flight and Empire-Building in the Early Modern Spanish Borderlands of Essequibo-Venezuela and Louisiana-Texas", Slavery & Abolition 40:1 (2019): 61–86
  28. ^ Pamphlets on the Venezuelan Question. 1896. pp. 63–65.
  29. ^ "Simón Bolívar acérrimo defensor del Esequibo – Jesús Sotillo Bolívar en Red Angostura". Red Angostura (in Spanish). 2020-08-20. Archived from the original on 22 July 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  30. ^ Ramírez Cuicas, Tulio (June 2019). "El Diferendo por el Territorio Esequibo en los Textos Escolares Venezolanos y Guyaneses" (PDF). Universidad Católica Andrés Bello: 58. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  31. ^ a b c d e Humphreys, R. A. (1967), "Anglo-American Rivalries and the Venezuela Crisis of 1895", Presidential Address to the Royal Historical Society 10 December 1966, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 17: pp 131–164
  32. ^ "THE BEGINNING OF THE GUYANA-VENEZUELA BORDER DISPUTE". guyana.org. 2009. Archived from the original on 16 October 2018. Retrieved 1 May 2009.
  33. ^ a b c d King, Willard L. (2007) Melville Weston Fuller – Chief Justice of the United States 1888–1910, Macmillan. p249
  34. ^ a b c Ince, Basil A. (1970). "The Venezuela-Guyana Boundary Dispute in the United Nations". Caribbean Studies. 9 (4): 5–26.
  35. ^ Zakaria, Fareed, From Wealth to Power (1999). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01035-8. pp145–146
  36. ^ Gibb, Paul, "Unmasterly Inactivity? Sir Julian Pauncefote, Lord Salisbury, and the Venezuela Boundary Dispute," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Mar 2005, Vol. 16 Issue 1, pp 23–55
  37. ^ Blake, Nelson M. "Background of Cleveland's Venezuelan Policy," American Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jan. 1942), pp. 259–277 in JSTOR Archived 9 June 2021 at the Wayback Machine
  38. ^ "Treaty of arbitration between Venezuela and Great Britain, signed at Washington and dated the second day of February, 1897" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 November 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  39. ^ Cano, Regina Garcia (21 November 2023). [https://apnews.com/article/venez uela-guyana-essequibo-territory-dispute-maduro-referendum-8911caf61da109caa830f99762def749 "With patriotic reggaeton and videos, Venezuela's government fans territorial dispute with Guyana"]. AP News. Archived from the original on 21 November 2023. Retrieved 21 November 2023. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 33 (help)
  40. ^ King (2007:260)
  41. ^ "Venezuelan Award: the decision of the Commission regarded as a Compromise" Archived 30 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine, in Saint John Daily Sun, Canada. October 4, 1899. p. 8
  42. ^ a b Kissler, Betty Jane, Venezuela-Guyana boundary dispute: 1899–1966, University of Texas (USA, 1972), pages 166, 172
  43. ^ a b Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary Decisions, Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law (Cambridge University, U.K., 2007), p. 43
  44. ^ a b c Schoenrich, Otto, "The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Dispute", July 1949, American Journal of International Law. Vol. 43, No. 3. p. 523. Washington, DC. (USA).
  45. ^ Isidro Morales Paúl, Análisis Crítico del Problema Fronterizo "Venezuela-Gran Bretaña", in La Reclamación Venezolana sobre la Guayana Esequiba, Biblioteca de la Academia de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Caracas, 2000, p. 200.
  46. ^ de Rituerto, Ricardo M. Venezuela reanuda su reclamación sobre el Esequibo Archived 19 November 2023 at the Wayback Machine, El País, Madrid, 1982.
  47. ^ a b c Hopkins, Jack W. (1984). Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record: 1982–1983, Volume 2. Holmes & Meier Publishers. ISBN 9780841909618.
  48. ^ Treaty of Geneva 1966 Archived 31 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Document Retrieval, UN Department of Political Affairs
  49. ^ a b "Raúl Leoni paró en seco a Guyana en la Isla Anacoco (documento)". La Patilla. 26 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2011-12-02. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  50. ^ "Raúl Leoni paró en seco a Guyana en la Isla Anacoco (documento)". La Patilla. 26 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2011-12-02. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  51. ^ a b c d e Sanders, Andrew (September 1987). "British Colonial Policy and the Role of Amerindians in the Politics of the Nationalist Period in British Guiana, 1945–68". Social and Economic Studies. 36: 93–94.
  52. ^ a b c "GUYANESE TROOPS MOVE ON REBELS; Sons of U.S.-Born Rancher Said to Be in Group". The New York Times. 1969-01-05. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-30. The Government charges that the ranchers have misled the Indians of the area into believing that the Government will take their land away and that they have persuaded the Indians to support the rebellion
  53. ^ a b c d e Braveboy-Wagner, Jacqueline Anne (2019). The Venezuela-Guyana Border Dispute: Britain's Colonial Legacy In Latin America. Routledge. ISBN 9781000306897.
  54. ^ *Griffith, Ivelaw Lloyd (2021-04-28). "New Dynamics in Northern South America's Geopolitical Neighborhood". Center for Strategic and International Studies. Archived from the original on 11 November 2023. Retrieved 3 December 2023. Venezuela made a failed attempt to instigate a secession of Indigenous citizens in the Rupununi district, which the Guyana Defense Force (GDF) successfully quelled on January 2, 1969. davi/page/191 191]-196. ISBN 9780801816956. Among the effects of the conflict were the use of force by Venezuela, her sponsoring of a secessionist movement in the Rupununi region of Guyana {{cite book}}: line feed character in |pages= at position 50 (help)
    • González, Pedro (1991). La Reclamación de la Guayana Esequiba. Caracas: s.n. ISBN 9800705155.
    • Black, Jeremy (2013). "Chapter 6: Wars Between Non-Western Powers, 1945-90". Introduction to global military history: 1775 to the present day (2. ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415629201. in 1969, the army and police in Guyana stopped a Venezuelan-backed secessionist rising in the Rupununi region
    • Taylor, Moe (2019). "Every Citizen a Soldier: The Guyana People's Militia, 1976–1985". Journal of Global South Studies. 36 (2). University of Florida: 279–311. doi:10.1353/gss.2019.0044. S2CID 213967050. In 1969, it was discovered that Caracas had backed a secessionist revolt by ranchers and Amerindians in the Rupununi region, ... To put this into perspective, when Guyana gained independence in May 1966, it had a standing army of 750 troops and no air or maritime forces. Venezuela, in contrast, had an army of 15,000, an impressive air fleet of British- and American-made jets and bombers, and a navy equipped with destroyers, frigates, and a submarine.
    • Miline, R. Stephen (September 1974). "Impulses and Obstacles to Caribbean Political Integration". International Studies Quarterly. 18 (3): 308. A Venezuelan incursion on the island of Ankoko (October 1966) and Venezuelan instigation of the Rupununi uprising (January 1969) were succeeded by an agreement signed on June 18, 1970, which provided that neither country would make any territorial claims for a period of at least twelve years.
    • Cush, Ifa Kamau (13 August 2015). "Venezuela: A 'fishbone' in the throat of Guyana". New York Amsterdam News. p. 2. In 1969, Venezuelan-trained and -equipped Guyanese secessionists declared an 'Essequibo Free State.'
  55. ^ Times, Special to The New York (1969-01-12). "GUYANESE MAY TRY REBELS WHO FLED". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 1 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-30.
  56. ^ "23 GUYANA REBELS FACE MURDER TRIAL". The New York Times. 1969-01-11. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-30.
  57. ^ a b c d e Sanders, Andrew (July 1972). "Amerindians in Guyana: A Minority Group in a Multi-Ethnic Society". Caribbean Studies. 12 (2): 31–51.
  58. ^ "Guyana Reports End of Uprising, Says Venezuela Aided Rebels". The New York Times. 6 January 1969. Archived from the original on 25 November 2023. Retrieved 25 November 2023. The government charge that the revolt had been led by wealthy cattle ranchers who coerced indigenous Indian peasants into supporting them
  59. ^ a b c "The Month in Review". Current History. 56 (331): 181–192. 1 March 1969. doi:10.1525/curh.1969.56.331.181.
  60. ^ "Guyana Reports End of Uprising, Says Venezuela Aided Rebels". The New York Times. 6 January 1969. Archived from the original on 25 November 2023. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  61. ^ Orellana Yépez, Rosario (January–March 2001). "THE VENEZUELAN COMPLAINT ABOUT GUIANA IS A TEAM. CHRONOLOGICAL FOLLOW-UP". Bulletin of the National Academy of History. 84 (333). National Academy of History of Venezuela.
  62. ^ Briceño Monzón, Claudio A.; Olivar, José Alberto; Buttó, Luis Alberto (2016). La Cuestión Esequibo: Memoria y Soberanía. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Metropolitana. p. 145.
  63. ^ "Guyana Releases 18 of 28 Accused in Recent Uprising". The New York Times. 1969-01-25. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-30.
  64. ^ a b c Milutin Tomanović (1971) Hronika međunarodnih događaja 1970, Institute of International Politics and Economics: Belgrade, p. 2512 (in Serbo-Croatian)
  65. ^ "The Trail of Diplomacy". www.guyana.org. Archived from the original on 28 June 2009. Retrieved 2022-03-04.
  66. ^ a b c Pena, Alfredo (26 April 1982). "Entrevista: Reinaldo Leandro Mora". El Nacional. p. C1.
  67. ^ a b c "Asamblea Nacional ratificó la soberanía de Venezuela sobre el Esequibo". El Nacional (in Spanish). 2019-10-01. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
  68. ^ Morsbach, Greg (March 13, 2006). "New Venezuela flag divides nation". BBC News. Archived from the original on 9 October 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2010.
  69. ^ Andrade, Gabriel (1 December 2020). "Banal Nationalism Disputes in Venezuela: 1999–2019". Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics. 14 (2). De Gruyter: 182–184. doi:10.2478/jnmlp-2020-0007.
  70. ^ "Press Release in Response to Venezuela's Objection to Guyana's Submission to the CLCS". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guyana. 15 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  71. ^ "Communication received with regard to the submission made by Guyana to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf" (PDF). UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). 9 March 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
  72. ^ "Gov't protests after Venezuela holds oil research boat". Stabroek News. 12 October 2013. Archived from the original on 6 April 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  73. ^ "Venezuela deplores incursion of vessel under Guyana's authorization". El Universal. 11 October 2013. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  74. ^ "Venezuela frees seized US-operated ship Teknik Perdana". BBC. 15 October 2013. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  75. ^ "Guyana says Exxon to begin offshore drilling, Venezuela irked". Reuters. 5 March 2015. Archived from the original on 13 October 2017. Retrieved 8 June 2015.
  76. ^ "ExxonMobil Announces Significant Oil Discovery Offshore Guyana". ExxonMobil. Archived from the original on 30 May 2016. Retrieved 8 June 2015.
  77. ^ "Canciller guyanés convocará a embajadora venezolana". El Universal. Archived from the original on 10 June 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2015.
  78. ^ "Guyana suspende entrada de vuelos de la aerolínea venezolana Conviasa". El Universal. 7 June 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-07-30. Retrieved 8 June 2015.
  79. ^ [https://guyanachronicle.com/2021/01/22/the-caribbean-is-brim ful-of-new-hope-as-the-biden-administration-takes-office/ "The Caribbean is brimful of new hope as the Biden Administration takes office"]. Guyana Chronicle. 2021-01-22. Archived from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 2023-12-14. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 61 (help)
  80. ^ a b "Guyana wants ICJ to order Venezuela off Ankoko". The Guyana Chronicle. 6 April 2018. Archived from the original on 3 February 2020. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  81. ^ "Secretary-General Chooses International Court of Justice as Means for Peacefully Settling Long-Standing Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy". UN. 30 January 2018. Archived from the original on 14 December 2018. Retrieved 11 December 2018.
  82. ^ "Guyana lleva a Venezuela a la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya en la disputa por el territorio del Esequibo". BBC. 29 March 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
  83. ^ "Venezuela propone a Guyana reiniciar los contactos sobre la soberanía de la región del Esequibo". Europa Press (in Spanish). 2018-03-30. Archived from the original on 12 April 2021. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
  84. ^ "El Esequibo, el territorio que disputan Venezuela y Guyana desde hace más de 50 años". BBC. 2018-03-30. Archived from the original on 29 November 2019. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
  85. ^ "Guyana pedirá a la CIJ que falle a su favor en la reclamación fronteriza". EFE. 19 June 2018. Archived from the original on 1 November 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  86. ^ "Guyana pedirá a la CIJ que falle a su favor en la disputa contra Venezuela". El Nacional. 19 June 2018. Archived from the original on 9 July 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  87. ^ "Venezuela no participará en procedimiento sobre Esequibo promovido por Guyana en La Haya". Efecto Cocuyo. 18 June 2018. Archived from the original on 18 June 2018.
  88. ^ "Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela): Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 2 July 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  89. ^ "Venezuela y Guayana deberán presentar sus alegatos sobre el Esequibo". El Nacional. 2 July 2018. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  90. ^ "Guyana espera fallo vinculante de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en disputa por el Esequibo". El Nacional. 28 October 2019. Archived from the original on 5 December 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  91. ^ "Guyana optimistic it will win the Esequibo dispute at the International Court of Justice". MercoPress. 7 December 2019. Archived from the original on 27 December 2019. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
  92. ^ "Venezuela geen deel in hoorzittingen grensgeschil". Star Nieuws (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 24 June 2020. Retrieved 23 June 2020.
  93. ^ "Guyana asks World Court to confirm border with Venezuela". Reuters. 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 1 July 2020. Retrieved 2020-07-01.
  94. ^ a b "ARBITRAL AWARD OF 3 OCTOBER 1899 (GUYANA v. VENEZUELA)" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 8 March 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 May 2022. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  95. ^ "U.S., Guyana to launch joint maritime patrols near disputed Venezuela border". news.yahoo.com. Reuters. September 18, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2020. Retrieved Sep 19, 2020.
  96. ^ "El Gobierno venezolano y la oposición acuerdan defender la soberanía de Esequibo y luchar contra la pandemia". ElDiario.es (in Spanish). Mexico City. EFE. 7 September 2021. Archived from the original on 7 September 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  97. ^ Berg, Stephanie van den; Buitrago, Deisy; Buitrago, Deisy (2023-04-06). "World Court says it can rule on Guyana-Venezuela border dispute". Reuters. Archived from the original on 28 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  98. ^ "Así quedaría el "nuevo" mapa de Venezuela con el Esequibo, según Maduro" (in Spanish). El Heraldo. 5 December 2023. Archived from the original on 11 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  99. ^ Chabrol, Denis (2023-10-23). "Venezuelan electoral council approves five questions for referendum on Essequibo". Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana. Archived from the original on 3 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-03.
  100. ^ Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Guyana Asks UN Court To Stop Venezuelan Referendum Over Oil Region". www.barrons.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-03.
  101. ^ Commonwealth-Secretariat. "Statement by the Commonwealth Secretary-General on the escalation of the Guyana-Venezuela border dispute". Archived from the original on 3 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-23.
  102. ^ Caribbean Community. "STATEMENT BY THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY (CARICOM) ON THE GUYANA-VENEZUELA BORDER CONTROVERSY". Archived from the original on 23 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-23.
  103. ^ "Brazil increases northern border military presence amid Venezuela-Guyana spat -ministry". Reuters. 29 November 2023. Archived from the original on 30 November 2023. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
  104. ^ "UN court bars Venezuela from altering Guyana's control over disputed territory". ABC News. 1 December 2023. Archived from the original on 2 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-03.
  105. ^ Shortell, David (2023-12-04). "Venezuelans approve takeover of oil-rich region of Guyana in referendum". CNN. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-04.
  106. ^ Artículos 15 y 16 de la Constitución del Estado Bolívar.
  107. ^ "Territorio original de Delta Amacuro desde 1884". Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  108. ^ "MAS pide intervención del Gobierno en caso del Esequivo". Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 31 December 2012.
  109. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20131212035724/http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/constitucion1999.htm [bare URL]

Bibliography

6°18′N 59°42′W / 6.3°N 59.7°W / 6.3; -59.7

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alejitao123/sandbox/Copy-edit/Guyana-Venezuela_Dispute&oldid=1233164128"