It is not just the auctioning of Guyana’s oil blocks which have set Venezuela off on its current track of impolitic responses. We are by now accustomed to the shrill denunciations emanating from Caracas every time a government here negotiates a major contract in Essequibo, especially if that involves drilling for hydrocarbons in the adjoining maritime space. Some years ago the Venezuelan navy could chase off exploratory vessels from our waters, as they did in the case of the Teknik Perdana in 2013, but nowadays with ExxonMobil firmly established in the Stabroek Block that is no longer an option.
Still, calling for a national referendum on Essequibo when the validity of the 1899 Award is currently with the ICJ, seems unusually confrontational if not hazardous, since the attempt to stir up national feeling on the subject in this way has unpredictable consequences. It has already inspired one pollster, Dataviva, to undertake a survey, and according to the findings 88.1% of Venezuelans supported the Essequibo claim, while 2.1% disagreed. Those who opposed, it was suggested, did so because they had “never been involved” with the historical processes. More likely they had either escaped decades of indoctrination, or alternatively, were rational, knowledgeable thinkers.
Last Tuesday hundreds marched through Caracas in support of President Nicolás Maduro for his stance on Essequibo. It might be noted, however, that they were all Chavistas, that is to say, they came from Mr Maduro’s own party. Elements of the opposition, in contrast, are not in favour of a referendum according to El Nacional, which reported Williams Dávila, President of the Joint Commission for the Defence of Venezuelan Sovereignty over the Essequibo Territory and its Atlantic Façade as commenting that Chavismo wanted to politicise the process. “The consultative referendum entails politicizing the issue and not seeking a peaceful solution to the problem,” he was quoted as saying. He went on to warn that the call was ‘worrisome’ because an armed conflict could be engendered by not responding to the demand and by saying that the people are in favour of the referendum.
In case anyone thinks that this is indicative of enlightenment having descended to our west, such a conclusion would be somewhat premature. Mr Dávila made reference to the case before the ICJ, and expressed the view: “I think we could win the case because we are assisted by evidence, arguments, documents of the historical legal titles of Venezuela on the area.” Unfortunately for Venezuela, in the sixty-odd years since it has been asserting its imaginary claim, it has never produced a single historical document which would lend credence to its oft-repeated insistence it has legal title. That aside, Mr Dávila’s political point about President Maduro engaging in a “provocative action” has substance, and that this is what caused “international actors” as he described them, to speak out.
Last weekend Mr Maduro upped the ante by saying he wanted to re-enter direct talks on the issue. “There is only one solution here and that is to resume face-to-face and direct dialogue within the framework of the Geneva Agreement,” he is reported to have said in a video which was broadcast in Venezuela. The absurdity of making such a proposal when the matter is before an international court does not seem to have crossed his mind. But then it is reasonable to suppose he did not expect it to be taken seriously by Guyana; he was just trying to demonstrate to his own people that he was falling over himself to offer a peaceful route to a solution and that this country was resisting.
No matter how ludicrous the proposition, given the diplomatic requirements Georgetown had to answer the nonsense, which it duly did. In addition to the formal statements, Foreign Minister Hugh Todd told Stabroek News: “We are following the 1966 Geneva Agreement to the letter. We have had bilateral talks and that failed. We used, as I said, the 1966 Agreement which provided for the United Nations Secretary General to choose a path for the final resolution…” The interesting thing is that Venezuela keeps repeating that it is the one which is adhering to the Geneva Agreement, and that Guyana, according to Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil, is “manipulating” it. The reality is that Venezuela is the one doing the “manipulating”; in fact it is worse than that, it is deliberately misinterpreting the Agreement and has been doing so for years. It has now become a victim of its own self-deception.
What all this comes down to is that Venezuela fears Guyana is going to win its case in front of the World Court, which would kick the bottom out of the pseudo moral and legal position Caracas has been clinging to for so long. So what will its government tell its people, more especially now they have been roused on the matter? Certainly any decision which confirms the validity of the 1899 Award will be rejected, and already Foreign Minister Gil has alighted on the potential excuse of US interventionism in the controversy with Guyana which he denounced at the UN. His statements were endorsed by the executive in Caracas.
It might be noted that while it is only in more recent times that America has been open about its support for Guyana’s position, it has never given public backing to Venezuela in the matter. It is now known, for example, that even as early as 1968, when Venezuelan President Raúl Leoni issued a decree purportedly annexing 12 miles of sea along the Essequibo coast, he was informed unofficially that the US authorities would not recognise it.
For all the talk of a referendum, etc, Venezuela did not want to appear belligerent in eyes of the international community, particularly when Caricom and the Commonwealth in particular, had expressed their support for this country. So Mr Gil assured the General Assembly that his nation’s recent statements in no way constituted a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana. Overly cynical Guyanese, of course, might be tempted to ask whether he was referring to this country as defined in 1899, or the rump of it which Venezuela has in mind.
It might be thought that it would not be in Mr Maduro’s interest to stir up passions in the populace about Guyana if he anticipates an unpalatable outcome in The Hague. Would it not make more sense to play down the issue in the hopes it would slide by, if not unnoticed, at least to the degree it does not become lodged in the forefront of the public consciousness?
But there is something else at play, and that is to do with internal politics. Venezuela is due for presidential polls next year, and while it is experiencing recession and high inflation which are partly the result of US sanctions, it has shown little appetite so far for a free and fair poll in exchange for the lifting of some of those sanctions. Some opposition figures have already been banned from participating in the election, or at least face bans. In addition, a completely new electoral council has been installed, whose members have been elected by the National Assembly, which in turn is controlled by President Maduro’s party. The prognostications are, therefore, that economic conditions or not, the head of state is not prepared to vacate Miraflores.
The last fraudulent election in 2018 was followed by a major crisis, which eventually the government was able to ride out, but it is to be presumed that it is seizing on the controversy with Guyana to deflect attention from the poll, and to stir up a sense of unity in the country. No doubt it regards it as serendipitous that the ICJ case and the preliminaries to the presidential election will be taking place in the same year. In such a volatile country, however, the administration may find that events do not play out quite as they anticipated, particularly if the World Court renders a judgement before the poll is held.
As for this side of the border, no matter the rancour which characterises our normal political exchanges, unity was the watchword last week. First, President Irfaan Ali contacted Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton to advise him of developments on the boundary front, and then the latter gave him an exemplary response. Whatever is going on in Venezuela this country across the board stands firm in defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
