Dear Editor,
It is obvious that something is rotten in the Bolivarian State of Venezuela. The rottenness is reflected in weaponizing the border controversy for political and jingoistic ambitions, electoral shopping and as an attempt to by-pass ICJ proceedings. The governance decay was confirmed by Sadio Garavini de Turno, a former Venezuelan Ambassador to Guyana who wrote in a post on X: “In my opinion, the referendum is a maneuver to distract public attention from the enormous socioeconomic failure, in view of the announced 2024 elections, by raising the nationalist flag. Furthermore, it is also about forgetting the irresponsible and very unprofessional handling of the controversy, during these two decades, which has led us to the ICJ, the scenario preferred by Guyana since 1966.” Attorney General and Minister of Justice Anil Nandlall put it more crisply saying: “Venezuela’s referendum on Guyana’s Essequibo can be interpreted as an attempt to “defeat” the purpose of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the litigation that is now before it seeking affirmation of the 1899 arbitral ruling as a final settlement of the boundary between the two countries.”
Therefore, the holding of Venezuela’s referendum is beyond the shadow of doubt extra-territorial in nature and, a blatant attempt to jettison the ICJ process. In the meantime, responding to representation made by the Government of Guyana, the ICJ announced that it; ‘will hold public hearings on November 14 on Guyana’s request for provisional measures related to a referendum planned by Venezuela on December 3rd on Essequibo which is the substance of a case currently being heard by the Holland-based tribunal.’ Venezuela’s aggressive and expansionist antics have stirred the interest of the Guyanese populace. In this regard, mainstream media plus the use of their social media platforms are playing a salutary role by highlighting the issue, bringing it to the attention of the reading public. Moreover, it is commendable that government wasted no time to alert the international community about its concerns. Thus far, CARICOM, the OAS, the Commonwealth, the US and the EU have criticized Venezuela’s aggressive and expansionist designs. At the same time, they expressed their full and unequivocal support for, and solidarity with Guyana’s efforts to rebuff the referendum in defence of Guyana’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
We are yet to hear from CELAC, the OIC, the ACP, the G77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement ((NAM) and UNASUR, all to whom Guyana belongs. However, the international support and solidarity garnered thus far should not invite complacency on the diplomatic front. Venezuela has greater diplomatic reach with about 112 diplomatic missions around the world while Guyana has 22. In the circumstances, it would be naive to believe that Miraflores would not leverage its diplomatic reach to sell whatever its egotistic and cynical interpretation might be of the Geneva Agreement. Moreover, consideration should be given to the fact that the disgraceful referendum is being touted at a time when the world remains deeply divided on every major issue affecting humanity; and it not because there is a shortage of resources as some try to make out considering the billions spent on weaponry pouring into Israel and Ukraine. In most instances, it is because countries prefer to stick to their geo-political interests. In the circumstances, such indifferent posturing can be unhelpful to Guyana at this time.
It is to be recalled that Venezuela always spurned the multilaterization of the border controversy. It has always sought to locate the controversy within the ambit of bilateralism; its preferred comfort zone. In pursuit of this goal, Venezuela used numerous stratagems including ‘Globalism,’ ‘high level bilateral commissions,’ ‘the Good Officer Process’, ‘‘Joint’ development,’ ‘protection of the environment,’ ‘practical solutions,’ ‘maritime delimitation’, ‘access to the Atlantic’ or ‘leasing regimes’ all of which failed abysmally when it became clear that Venezuela’s sole intention was to insert and assert itself as landlord and sole proprietor of Essequibo. Maduro’s campaign calling on the Venezuelan populace to support the referendum and to vote ‘Yes’ to the five questions may not be so much to show Guyana or the ICJ that the Venezuelan populace is supportive of the referendum, but to demonstrate to his political opposition and incessant critics that his regime is not tottering on the brink of collapse.
It is necessary to consider the historical antecedents and apparent gross naivety in global affairs that could be fueling Maduro’s illusions of grandeur in pursuit of his land grabbing effort believing he would get away with it as others did in the past. Take for example Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, Turkey’s occupation and partition of Cyprus, Britain regaining control of the Malvinas, US/Turkeye’s military occupation of North Eastern Syria, and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. Experience has shown that while international support and solidarity are powerful mobilizing factors, they are not sufficient enough to uproot and dispel an occupying force from an occupied country. Observers claim that Venezuela may be calculating that given the turmoil in the world today, and the US’s and Europe’s preoccupation with Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they may not be keen getting involved in another theatre of conflict in this part of the world whereby Venezuelan hawks are hoping to get away with their attempt to annex of the part of Guyana’s national territory. It is perhaps the fear of failure at the ICJ and/or the negative consequences of his land grabbing effort that is clouding Maduro’s judgement and leading him to make choices that may not be in Venezuela’s best interest.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
