The Guyana vs Venezuela boundaries dispute is over 200 years old

Basic history and geography as a reference

We will start with you as the reader, imagining a map. By 1800 the map of Northeast of South America had the following countries from West to East: Spain, The Netherlands, France and Portugal.

The boundary between Spain and the Netherlands was well defined after Spain recognized Netherland´s possessions in 1648 with the Esequibo River region as their west boundary with Spain.

By 1810 with the declaration of independence of the Spanish provinces of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama which all were part of then named Gran Colombia, the map changed to : Gran Colombia, Netherland´s Guyana, France´s Guyana and Portugal.

On August 13 1814 by the “London Treaty” the British, who had taken over the Netherland´s Curacao Island after the British took over Netherlands in Europe, returned Curacao Island to the Dutch in exchange with Netherlands´ western lands in Guiana located up to the known western border . As a consequence these new British lands limited on the west with Gran Colombia with the Esequibo River region as a natural boundary. The area was named British Guiana so the map changed then to Gran Colombia, British Guiana, Netherlands Guyana, French Guiana and Portugal.

In 1824 brings one of the most important acts to help clarify and resolve the over 200 year situation. Britain recognized Gran Colombia as a country and agreed that British Guiana had as it’s west boundary the Esequibo River. The Gran Colombia included what was to be Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Venezuela.

In 1830 after the Province of Venezuela separated from Gran Colombia and being on the east side of Gran Colombia its east boundary was then British Guiana. So the land map turned to: Venezuela, British Guiana, Dutch Guyana, French Guyana and now Brazil, because in 1822 it declared its independence from Portugal.

We could also include as a British the island of Trinidad as fruit of an invasion in 1797 to this Spain territory which would ended up being part of Venezuela but Spain could not defend it because early 1800´s it was kingless because of a French invasion, so for England it was an easy land to take and keep for esclave trafficking purposes.

After Britain gave its independence to inhabitants of British Guiana in the 1960´s, dropping the “British” from the country´s name the land map changed and is now: Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam, French Guyana and Brazil with disputed boundaries between Venezuela and Guyana that are now over 200 years old.

Moving boundary lines from 1822

Even though the British knew that after the treaty with Gran Colombia of 1824, and after 1830 Venezuela´s separation from Gran Colombia, it had the Esequibo river as its western boundary, they started trespassing the river with settlers from 1822 onward. Venezuela sent diplomatic dispatches to Britain pointing out the that their west border with Venezuela was the Esequibo River but Britain did not care to respect documents.

The moto for England seemed to be invade, then negotiate, not caring for the law treaties nor documents but on the use of their military power and political influence.

Based on surveyors starting with Schomburgk in 1839, Britain started moving “officially” its boundaries in 1841. In 1850 Venezuela and Britain signed a very significant pact called the “Status Quo Treaty”, an agreement to stop any intrusions from either side of a border line in discussions at the time while conversations advanced.

But this pact did not hold the British to keep moving the posts west taking each time more Venezuelan territories in the years 1881, 1886 and in 1890.

Towards arbitration in 1897

Venezuela was weak but had documented land rights so it asked the United States for help under the Monroe Doctrine to stop the British from further advances. In 1895 US Congress sent letters to England and Venezuela to adhere to an arbitraged solution and in 1896 the United States created a commission to analyze the boundaries situation.

Before US participation the British had rejected multiple Venezuelan proposals for settlement for the untold reason that the only documents the British wanted to deal with were dubious Dutch documentation and not the 1824 treaty with their west limit at the Esequibo River so no legal rights to validate and justify their incursions.

On February 2 of 1897 with the help from the United States, Britain finally accepted to an arbitraged solution with Venezuela under the named “Washington Treaty”. This treaty set the arbitration rules for the later 1899 Paris Arbitrage, rules very unfavorable to Venezuela to the point that Venezuelan judges were unacceptable by Britain, they had to be native US citizens.

At the end this was what Britain wanted, fight in international courts where they were as strong as they used to be in the seas.

The Paris Arbitrage award of 1899

On October 3rd 1899, the arbitrage judges unanimously favored the British in an unmotivated sentence of just six paragraphs adjudicating the British with vasts lands . Three important facts were excluded from dealings: The British original territory negotiated with the Netherlands that had the Esequibo River region on its west; the 1824 treaty with Gran Colombia in which Britain recognized the river as its west boundary and the Status Quo of 1850. These important facts were excluded in discussions in Paris, even though they were to be considered as part of the rules for arbitration of 1897. This made the sentence annullable and not existent for breaking many of the Washington Treaty arbitrage rules.

At the end, the arbitrage took a political twist to legalize Britain´s occupation and decide which new border line to use asa boundary, instead of a decision based on laws and documents. It was so atrocious the decision that after the Paris dealings Britain had much more land that what the Dutch, had given them.

The Geneva Accord of 1966

Right after the Paris Arbitrage, multiple manifestations and private letters and conversation and specially a death letter of judge Mallet-Prevost in 1949 a judge in the Paris arbitrage, mentioned the Russian judge and president of the court had conflicts of interest and went along with UK´s judges.

So many things were out of law, logic and injustice to Venezuela that the United Nations approved a motion where the United Kingdom, Guyana and Venezuela should revise the dealings regarding the Paris situation. They were to reach a “practical and acceptable” solution to the dispute.

This agreement would be known as the Geneva Accord and directly or indirectly was a sign that the Paris arbitrage had not been final.

Port of Spain protocol of 1972

Guyana which was now independent and Venezuela agreed to pause the Geneva accord of 1996 for 12 years.

Since 2018

After the Geneva Accord in 1966 up to November 2017 there was no way to resolve the border dispute but in the mean time Guyana has conceded mining and lumber concession unilaterally on the disputed area.

On January 30th in 2018 the Secretary General of the United Nations decided that under the Geneva Accord and United Nations Charter, the solution to the controversy would be decided by the International Court of Law.

Afterwards on March 18th 2018, Guyana filed an application against Venezuela on the International Court of Law ( ICL ) to resolve the matter of the territory in dispute. On June 2018 Venezuela held that this court had no jurisdiction to handle the case, Guyana claim it had but when it became Venezuela´s turn to support their claim there was no formal answer so it was approved that ICJ did have jurisdiction on December 2020.

But Venezuela is now again in a weak spot. Guyana´s first claim under the Geneva Agreement umbrella before the ICL asks to validate the Paris Arbitrage. This the ICL should have not allowed because it contradicts the Geneva Agreement which was to resolve the dispute “ in a practical and acceptable way”. In other words, if the Geneva accord was not to validate the Paris Arbitrage, why bring it up now ? ; the act of signing the Geneva Agreement implies that the Paris Arbitrage was not fair nor done.

Guyana says indirectly that to validate the Geneva accord first you have to determine the invalidity of the Paris arbitrage , but the fact that Guyana signed the 1972 Port of Spain protocol means they accepted the Geneva agreement and to fulfill its objective and not consider the Paris Arbitrage.

But little can be done in this respect, because the Court did not invalidate Guyana´s claim.

As the process moves along we look forward as Venezuelan that treaties, laws, maps and documents as well as logic prevail and that judges consider what the Paris 1899 judges oversaw.