An overview of

The Guyana/Venezuela Border ProblemBy Gordon L. Lowe

gordonmarielowe@netzero.com

The Guyana/Venezuela Border Problem has a long and torturous history and like any such problem, the only way to understand it is to go back into the period before it arose and study the then existing conditions, for it is here that the seeds of discontent are planted. These seeds are then watered and fertilized by the events of subsequent years – be they natural of manufactured.

Guayana (The Land of Many Waters) --: “Guayana” is the old Spanish word for the northeastern part of South America, which is bordered on the north and east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by the Orinoco River, on the south by the Amazon River, and on the southwest by the Rio Negro (the main tributary of the Amazon River), and the Cassiquiare Rivers. By using this generally accepted description, we see that “British Guiana (Guyana), “Dutch Guiana” (Suriname) and “French Guiana” (Guyane) are all 100% within its borders, while only the southeastern part of “Spanish Guiana” (Venezuela) and the northwestern part of “Portuguese Guiana” (Brazil) can be considered as parts of Guayana. It is of passing interest to note that, during the period of early Spanish activities, Guayana was often considered to be an island.

Activities of the Spaniards --: During 1499, the Spaniards, under Alonzo de Ojeda, became the first Europeans to investigate the Guayanan part of South America. Although that trip was more one of inspection rather than colonisation, the Spaniards sometime around 1591, eventually did setup Santo Thome de Guayana, aka Santo Thome, as an outpost not very far from the Amerindian village of Carao, fairly close to the mouth of the Caroni River and not very far from present day Cuidad Guayana. For approximately 130 years, this under-supported endeavor remained their only attempt at starting a settlement in Guayana. Even so, repeated attacks by the Dutch and the Caribs, forced them to relocate the mission at least four times, each time with an eye towards improved security.

After several unsuccessful attempts at setting-up permanent settlements in the Essequibo area, in 1724 the Spaniards were finally able to establish a Capuchin Mission Station, fairly close to the Orinoco River. Other attempts were made but most of these were either destroyed by the Caribs or abandoned because of epidemics. Eventually, even the few surviving missions were destroyed during the Venezuelan War of Independence.

Of these, the Capuchin Mission on the Curumo River, a tributary of the Upper Cuyuni River, was the one which was located the closest to present day Guyana.

Activities of the Dutch --: From the time of their arrival and for a period of over 200 years, the Dutch maintained close alliances with the Caribs. Whereas the Spaniards came as conquerors, the Dutch came as traders and settlers who befriend the Indigenous Nations and were thus able to successfully establish permanent settlements in the Essequibo region. Furthermore, they had the good foresight to invest the Chiefs of these Nations with insignias of office and to allow both civil and criminal cases, involving the indigenous people, to be adjudicated in the Dutch Court of Justice. As a

1

1

result of the goodwill which existed between the two peoples, the Dutch were able, even during the period of their War of Independence (1568 to 1648), to increase their settlements, and to use the Indians as warriors against Spanish intrusions. Eventually, Holland gained its independence from Spain and their sovereignty over their territories in Guayana was confirmed by the January 1648 Peace Treaty of Munster.

Lost opportunity --: Had the January 1648 Peace Treaty of Munster delimited the boundaries between the Dutch and the Spaniards in South America, the Guyana/Venezuela Border Problem might never have occurred.

The Original Dutch Claims --: During the 18th century, the Dutch used two Remonstrances to state their territorial claims in Guayana. The more comprehensive of these, i.e. the one which claimed lands as far west as the Barima area, was presented to the Spanish Court in 1769. Notwithstanding the importance of these claims, the Spanish Attorney-General made the single recommendation that his Government should do nothing until “future events show what ought to be decided on”. By passing a resolution accepting this laissez-faire position, the Spanish Government never addressed the claims, neither accepting nor disallowing them. This was another missed opportunity.

Activities of the British --: After conquering the three Dutch Colonies of Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice in 1803, the British assumed effective control over them and continued the Dutch practice of investing the Amerindian Chiefs with insignias of their office. Unfortunately, the 1814 Anglo-Dutch Peace Treaty, which confirmed British sovereignty over the former Dutch colonies, did not delimit their borders. This was another missed opportunity.

Great Britain amalgamates the three colonies --: In 1831 the three British colonies were amalgamated as the three counties of a single colony of Great Britain, officially known as British Guiana. The Schomburgk Line --: Following the amalgamation of the counties, nothing very significant happened until 1840 when Great Britain commissioned Robert Schomburgk to survey and delimit the borders of British Guiana. In this regard, he made four expeditionary voyages during the period from 1841 to 1844, and established what became known as “The Schomburgk Line”.

Robert Hermann Schomburgk was born on June 5th 1804 in Fryburg, Germany. His 1831 (?) survey of the treacherous waters surrounding the B.W.I. Island of Anegada so impressed the Royal Geographic Society of London that they sent him to British Guiana to make three exploratory journeys between 1834 and 1838. It was the expertise he displayed during these activities and his knowledge of the colony of British Guiana that encouraged Great Britain to commission him to do the border surveys.

By placing the boundary-line between British Guiana and Venezuela close to the Orinoco River, Schomburgk included the entire basins of the Essequibo and Cuyuni Rivers within British Guiana’s borders.

It was unfortunate that the map which Schomburgk had produced was not published until 1887 after Great Britain had proclaimed the Schomburgk Line to be the Provisional Boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela. This delay in publication allowed Venezuela to claim that the map was “amended” by the British Foreign Office to suit their own purpose.

2

2

Venezuela becomes Independent --: Soon after it won its independence from Spain in 1830, Venezuela raised the question of delimiting its borders with British Guiana and talks with Great Britain ensued. But, unfortunately, no basis for a negotiated settlement was found.

Venezuela rejects The Schomburgk Line --: In 1844 the Venezuelan Government refused to accept The Schomburgk Line of Demarcation and made its first official claim to “all lands (in British Guiana) west of the Essequibo River”.

The 1850 Non-violation Agreement --: In an attempt to reduce the tension which existed between them, Great Britain and Venezuela acknowledged the status quo, which obviously could not be defined, and signed the 1850 Agreement of Non-violation of the Disputed Area. Unfortunately, neither side lived up to their undertaking.

Gold discovered in the Essequibo --: The fact that gold was discovered in the Essequibo area during 1877 added an additional dimension to the simmering problems.

Diplomatic Relations broken off --: In 1887, Great Britain’s oft repeated refusal to refer the border problem to arbitration caused the Venezuelan Government, to suspended diplomatic relations with Great Britain and to accuse it of “acts of spoliation”.

The U.S.A. becomes involved --: Between 1876 and 1895, the Venezuelans continually appealed to the United States of America for assistance in settling the border dispute. It was not until the latter year, however, after Venezuela had hired William Scruggs, a former American Consul in Caracas, to be their lawyer and propagandist that things started to happen. Scruggs’ first major initiative was to produce a booklet titled “British Aggressions in Venezuela or The Monroe Doctrine on Trial” and to distribute it in the U.S.A. The booklet suggested that, while Venezuela was anxious to go to arbitration, Great Britain was defying the Monroe Doctrine by it’s aggressively seizure of Venezuela’s territory without due cause. Consequently, Leonidas Livingston, a Congressman from Georgia, introduced a resolution encouraging Great Britain and Venezuela to settle their dispute through arbitration. Its passage, on February 20th 1895, forced President Grover Cleveland to invoke the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and to apply pressure on Great Britain.

The Monroe Doctrine --: It must be noted that Article #3 of the Doctrine proclaimed that “the Western Hemisphere is closed to further colonization”, and that Article #4 proclaimed that “any attempt by European Powers to oppress or control any nation in the western hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States of America”.

Britain rejects the application of the Monroe Doctrine --: As was to be expected, Lord Salisbury, Great Britain’s Prime Minister rejected the application of the Monroe Doctrine to the Guyana/Venezuela question because it was not constituted on principles of international law which were “founded on the general consent of nations”.

3

3

U.S.A./Venezuela Boundary Commission --: During January 1896, President Cleveland appointed a Commission to “investigate and report upon the true divisional lines between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana”.

At this time Great Britain was heavily involved with the “Boer Question” and did not want to be engaged simultaneously on two fronts, and being desirous of improving her relationship with the U.S.A., she changed her tactics and initiated some political initiatives to this end. Also, realising that it was to her benefit to have both sides of the problem presented to the Commission, Great Britain decided to provide the Commission with copies of all pertinent documents in her possession. However, in 1897 when Great Britain signed the Treaty of Washington which created an Arbitral Tribunal, the Commission became redundant. Consequently, the Commission simply collated its information, issued a report with no recommendations/suggestions about possible solutions and wound itself up.

The 1898 Arbitral Tribunal --: This Tribunal was made up of five members. The Venezuelans appointed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice David Brewer, also of the U.S. Supreme Court. The British Privy Council appointed Lord Chief Justice Baron Farrer Herschell and Lord Justice Sir Richard Henn Collins of the Courts of Appeal. Unfortunately, Baron Herschell died before starting his assignment and was replaced by British Chief Justice Lord Charles Russell of Killowen. Both Governments then nominated Frederic de Martens, an eminent Russian Professor of International Law, to be the President of the Tribunal. de Martens’ ability and integrity were so well known internationally, that the other four-tribunal members had no problem giving their quick and unanimous approval to his appointment.

The Tribunal stipulated --: That both Venezuela and Great Britain were allowed equal

representation; That International law was to be applied and That the award was to be “a full, perfect and final

settlement” of the dispute.

U.S. ex-President General Benjamin Harrison assisted by Severo Mallet-Prevost, former Secretary of the U.S.A./Venezuelan Boundary Commission, along with General Benjamin Tracy and James Russel Soley, two former members of President Harrison’s administration, represented Venezuela.

Attorney-General Sir Richard Webster assisted by Former Attorney-General Sir Robert Reid, Justice S.A.T. Rowlatt and George Askwith represented Great Britain.

The Arbitration Sessions --: The first set of written submissions was delivered to the Tribunal during March 15th 1898 and was followed by a second set during July 15th. On September 15th, the first set of written rebuttals was submitted, followed by a final set

on November 15th. Finally, the Tribunal met in Paris for 55 four-hour grueling sessions of long and tedious oral presentations, during the period of June 15th to September 15th 1899.

4

4

These freehand maps have no coordinates and are not geographically accurate. They are used merely to give an idea of what happened.

Venezuela’s Claim --: was neither well documented nor well presented. It contended --:

The Venezuela’s submission, which showed a demarcation line starting at the mouth of the Moruka River, then south to the Cuyuni River near its junction with the Mazaruni River, then south along the eastern bank of the Essequibo River to the Brazilian frontier, That Pope Alexander 6’s 1493 Bull had granted Spain all lands discovered in the Guayanan part of South America;

that Spain was the discoverer of the area known as Guayana; that Spain had explored the area by sailing along the Amazon, the Rio Negro and the Orinoco

Rivers; that Spain had taken formal possession of all lands bounded by these rivers and had even settled

in places such as Santo Thome; that Venezuela had inherited all possessions and rights of the Spanish discoverer; that the 1648 Peace Treaty of Munster had granted only the settlement of Kykoveral to the

Dutch; that the Dutch had no rights of expansion under that Treaty; that maps printed by both Great Britain and Venezuela, when Great Britain acquired the three

Dutch Colonies in 1814, showed the Essequibo River as the border; that Britain had subsequently established numerous “demarcation lines” between British Guiana

and Venezuela and finally that their claim was always consistent.

Great Britain’s Claim --: Notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain had, over the period from 1840 to 1893, established no fewer than six “demarcation lines” between British Guiana and Venezuela, each time moving the line further west thereby increasing their claim from 76,000 sq. miles to 103,000 sq. miles, Great Britain’s submission was straightforward, well thought out, well documented and well presented. Great Britain contended --:

That British Guiana’s western boundary with Venezuela, started at the mouth of the Amakura River, followed that river to the Imataka Mountains, then along the watershed between the tributaries of the Orinoco River and those of the Cuyuni and the Mazaruni Rivers to the frontier of Brazil at Mount Roraima;

that attempts by various Popes to divide the New World were not binding on her because she had never accepted the authority of the Pope in that matter;

that she was not bound by the January 1648 Peace Treaty of Munster because she was not a party to it, but that it had, in fact, confirmed on the Dutch and her heirs, the rights of ownership and enjoyment to any territories/countries which they then held in South America, as well as “all

5

5

places which the States-General should thereafter conquer and possess without infraction of the Treaty”. Great Britain then presented a vast amount of documentary evidence supporting her claim that it was the Dutch, not the Spaniards, who had effectively occupied and controlled the Essequibo and Cuyuni basins;

that they had exerted not only political but judiciary control over the Amerindian Nations who occupied and controlled areas outside of that which the Dutch and then the British had occupied and controlled;

that they had inherited all Dutch possessions and rights, firstly through conquest in 1803 and then by ratification of that fact by the 1814 Anglo-Dutch Peace Treaty;

that they had continued the Dutch practice of investing the Chiefs of the Indigenous Nations with insignias of office and lastly

Great Britain presented no fewer than six principles of international law to bolster her claims.

The Award --: On October 4th 1899, the Tribunal announced its unanimous decision. It was hoped that this award would put an end to the problem which had existed for nearly sixty years and which could have resulted in a war with the U.S.A. and Venezuela fighting against Great Britain and British Guiana. Unfortunately, this merely quieted things for a time but did not end the problem.

In announcing their decision, the arbitrators wrote “We, the undersigned Arbitrators…….finally decide, award and determine that the boundary-line between the colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela is as follows --: Starting from the coast at Point Playa, the line of

boundary shall run in a straight line to the Barima River at its junction with the Mururuma River, and thence along the mid-stream of the latter river to its source, and from that point to the junction of the Haiowa River with the Amakura (River), and thence along the mid-stream of the Amakura (River) to its source in the Imataka Ridge, and thence in a south-westerly direction along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains to the highest point of the main range of such Imataka Mountains opposite to the source of the Barima (River), and thence along the main ridge in a south-easterly direction of the Imataka Mountains to the source of the Acarabisi (River), and thence along the mid-stream of the Acarabisi (River) to the Cuyuni (River), and thence along the northern bank of the Cuyuni River westward to its junction with the Wenamu (River) and thence along the mid-stream of the Wenamu (River) to its westernmost source, and thence in a direct line to the summit of Mount Roraima, and from Mount Roraima to the source of the Cotinga (River), and along the mid-stream of that river to its junction with the Takutu (River), and thence along the mid-stream of the Takutu (River) to its source, and thence in a straight line to the westernmost

point of the Akarai Mountains, and thence along the ridge of the Akarai Mountains to the source of the Corentin (River) called the Cutara River”.

Because the Amakura and Barima Rivers are open to the Atlantic Ocean, and because the Amakura forms part of the boundary-line while the Barima crosses it, these two rivers were given special treatment. The award opened them, during peacetime, to navigation by the

6

6

merchant-ships of all nations subject to all just regulations and to the payment of lighterage and or other like duties at bilaterally negotiated rates.

The award contained something for each side, for while Venezuela was not awarded everything she claimed i.e. “all lands west of the Essequibo River”, her ownership of the mouth of the Orinoco River and adjacent lands was confirmed. It is believed that Venezuela was not awarded the Essequiban area because of the accepted tenet of International Law that although discovery gave an initial claim to title, that ownership was perfected only through occupation and administration, both political and judicial. The point being that the documentation provided by the Venezuelans was insufficient to prove that either the Spaniards or the Venezuelans had met the pre-requisites of occupation and administration.

Conversely, Great Britain was not awarded all lands up to the Schomburgk Line. She lost control of the mouths of the Barima and Amakura Rivers along with the adjoining strips of land, plus a substantial amount of territory in the Upper Cuyuni River Basin.

As required by the Paris Award, Great Britain and Venezuela immediately setup a Mixed Boundary Commission to survey and demarcate the boundary lines. Those surveys were undertaken between 1901 and 1904 and the official maps were signed on January 7th 1905 in Georgetown, British Guiana.

It is unfortunate that the Tribunal was not required to nor did it provide a written opinion giving the facts and principles upon which its conclusions were based because this oversight became one of the points of contention during Venezuela’s 1962 resurrected claim. This was another missed opportunity.

Venezuela accepts the Award --: Apart from the 1905 signing of the Mixed Boundary Commission official maps, Venezuela demonstrated her full acceptance of the boundary-line when it published a map commemorating the Centennial of its 1811 Independence Movement. Both this map and a similar one published during 1917, showed the boundary-line as demarcated by the Mixed Boundary Commission.

The Border with Brazil is settled --: I must digress for a moment so as to comment on the underlined portion of the Award. Although the area referred to therein was awarded to British Guiana, negotiations between Great Britain and Brazil resulted in the cession of the territory to Brazil during June 1904. However, the actual demarcation of the precise point where the borders of British Guiana, Venezuela and Brazil met was not completed until 1931 by the team of British, Venezuelan and Brazilian surveyors. The results of these astronomical, topographical and geodetical observations and measurements were formally accepted on November 3rd 1932 by the respective governments.

Venezuela renews its Claim --: Venezuela continued to honour the agreement until February 1962 when, during a discussion at the U.N. on matters of de-colonisation in general and British Guiana’s forthcoming independence in particular, it presented a memorandum, with an attached copy of Mallett-Prevost’s belated “confessions” (Ref. “The Excuse” on page 11), claiming that since the 1899 Paris Award was arrived at “through political chicanery” and “not through judicial process as required”, that the 1899 Paris Agreement was “null and void”. It, therefore, claimed all lands west of the western bank of the Essequibo River, i.e. an area of approximately 50,000 square miles or 60% of the territory of British Guiana. This renewed claim actually constitutes a new claim because it includes the land between the Moruka and Essequibo Rivers.

7

7

On October 13th 1965, the Venezuelan Government passed a resolution stating that the Paris Award was “null and void” because it was arrived at through “substantial fraud”. Certified copies of that resolution were presented to the U.N. Secretary General and to U. N. Member States.

Why did this happen and what are the contributory reasons?

THE REASONS

The Wealth of the area --: The Essequibo area is noted for its richness in natural resources such as forest, water and various minerals. Huge deposits of iron ore are known to exist in the Imataka Mountains and large manganese deposits are found in the North West District while gold, diamonds and other precious minerals are found in the areas of the Barima, Mazaruni, Cuyuni and Potaro.

The Political conditions in British Guiana --: During the latter 1950s and early 1960s, there was a lot of political upheaval going on in British Guiana with the country taking a definite left leaning. Great Britain and the U.S.A. did not take kindly to this situation but it was the U.S.A. which showed much more active concern.

The Political & Economical conditions in Venezuela --: Simultaneous with British Guiana’s turn to the left, Venezuela was turning to the right and its left-leaning guerillas were moving into open military revolt. Because the Venezuelan Government felt that arms and ammunitions were being smuggled into Venezuela via British Guiana, and because of the rapid economic deterioration being experienced and the growing unpopularity of the Government, President Betancourt decided that he had to find “a way” of redirecting the anger which was being focused on him and his Government. This, in a nutshell, was the tinderbox situation in both British Guiana and Venezuela. All that was missing was a trigger to set it off and an excuse to obfuscate the real situation.

THE TRIGGERS

U.S. Political Instigations --: While visiting Guyana during February 2004, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela made a speech before President Jagdeo and other Parliamentarians. In it, he stated that during the early sixties, the U.S.A had presented maps to the Venezuelan Government purporting to show the encirclement of Venezuela by Cuba, Grenada and Guyana. The aims of this miss-representation, he said, were to foment hostilities between the two countries and force them into hostile confrontation so that the States could sell obsolete arms and ammunitions to Venezuela and, at the same time, get rid of Prime Minister Burnham. President Chavez further stated that, as a junior Military Officer, he was called upon to plan invasion routes into Guyana but that, as the President, his only interest in maps is with regards to the planned trade route with Guyana.

This political interference by the U.S.A. thus became one of the Triggers.

To fully appreciate President Chavez’s statement of Feb/2004 it must be read in conjunction with his previous actions and statements --:

Article 10 of the new constitution which he enacted, specifically repudiates the 1899 Paris Award.

8

8

During the first centennial of the Arbitration Award, he reiterated his predecessor’s statement that Venezuela had no intentions of renouncing their rightful claim.

He then stated that Venezuela needed “a territorial re-vindication of a wide section of Guyana”.

When those utterances were being made, President Chavez was simply using political language to obfuscate his real meaning that nothing had changed and that Venezuela’s territorial claims were still alive and active.

Possible discovery of oil off of Essequibo --: In 1962, President Betancourt had a meeting with the head of the Shell Oil Company and was told about possible petroleum deposits under the continental shelf off of Essequibo.

The riches that could be generated by such a discovery became another Trigger.

THE EXCUSE

Severo Mallet-Prevost belated “confessions” --: During 1944, Severo Mallet-Prevost, a Counsel to the Venezuelans at the 1899 Paris Tribunal, dictated a memorandum to Judge Otto Schoenrich, a fellow partner in the U.S. Law Firm of Curtis Mallet-Provost Colte and Mosie, with instructions that it not be published until after his death. The gist of this memorandum, which was published in 1949, was that Justice Brewer had summoned him to his office and told him that the Agreement was not being made on legal terms but as a political agreement between the members of the Tribunal so that they could produce a unanimous decision. Furthermore, Mallet-Prevost was purported to have said that, “Venezuela was sold down the Orinoco”.

The end-result of these accusations of “fraud and gross impropriety” was the impugnation of the character and integrity of the five renowned Members of the 1899 Paris Tribunal.

Venezuela’s “Plan - B” --: Apparently realizing that he could not prove his claim “to all lands west of Essequibo River”, President Betancourt, during March 1962, presented an alternate proposal to Sir Douglas Busk, the British Ambassador that Britain and Venezuela should jointly administer “an area along the frontier”. In 1963 the Venezuelan Ambassador to London revisited this position and proposed to Lord Hume, the British Foreign Secretary, that “the World Bank should be asked to send a mission to survey the mineral and other resources of the frontier area with a view to joint development by Britain, Venezuela and the World Bank”. Finally, in 1965 during lead-up talks to the 1966 Geneva Conference, Dr Ignacio Iribarren Borges, the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Minister, proposed “the cession of territory to Venezuela and the establishment of a Mixed Commission to formulate plans for collaboration in the development of Essequiban Guiana and British Guiana”.

What does “an area along the frontier” mean? Is this a ribbon of land directly centered on the present-day boundary between Guyana and Venezuela or is it within Essequibo alone? How wide is this area? Why did the proposal not include British Guiana as a member of the proposed administrative body when they knew of its impending independence? Does the last proposal mean that Essequiban Guiana, and possibly the whole of British Guiana, should be ceded to Venezuela? Is “Plan - B” a Trojan horse? These are a few of the very important questions which have not yet been answered.

9

9

Great Britain and Venezuela re-examines their Documents --: As a result of the renewed claim and the parallel proposals, Great Britain suggested a re-examination of all documents. A Special Committee of the U.N. endorsed the plan and Venezuela duly accepted it. Between 1963 and 1965, experts from both countries re-examined the London and Caracas documents but found no reason to support Venezuela’s renewed claim. Venezuela, however, refused to accept these findings but was unable to offer concrete reasons for their refusal.

The 1966 Geneva Agreement --: Even after the failed re-examination of documents, Great Britain, British Guiana and Venezuela, signed the February 1966 Geneva Agreement which --:

Establish a Mixed Commission; Gave Venezuela an opportunity to prove that the Paris Award was “null and void”; Prohibited both sides from making new claims or enlarging existing ones and lastly, Created fertile conditions where solutions to the controversy could be found.

Venezuela’s only contributions to these deliberations were to steadfastly claim that the Award was “null and void”, to continue to refuse to prove that it was, and to demand that changes must be made to it.

British Guiana becomes Independent --: On May 26th 1966, British Guiana became Guyana, an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Venezuela recognizes a sovereign Guyana --: On May 26th 1966, Venezuela officially recognized the new sovereign state of Guyana but expressly reserved the rights of territorial sovereignty over the Essequibo territory, which is bounded in the east “through the middle line of the Essequibo River from its source and on to its mouth in the Atlantic Ocean”.

A Period of Fear in Guyana --: During the period just before Guyana’s independence and just after it, some Venezuelan rightist politicians and newspapers stridently demanded that since the Paris Award was “null and void” that Venezuela should “reclaim” the Essequibo region by force if necessary. Their agitation created a state of acute fear among Guyanese that Venezuela was about to invade Guyana.

Prime Minister Burnham supposedly plays Political Trump Card --: I understand that Prime Minister Burnham, recognizing the facts that Venezuela could over-run Guyana anytime it wanted to; that Great Britain most likely would not intervene on Guyana’s behalf and that the United States wanted him out, let it be known that as a Guyanese citizen, he was honour bound to defend the integrity of Guyana’s borders, and that, as Prime Minister of Guyana, it is his sworn duty to do likewise. Therefore, being twice bound, he will do all that is humanly and legally possible to defend the borders, even if it means turning to President Castro for assistance. The reasoning here was that neither Venezuela nor the U.S.A. would want to have Cubans soldiers roaming around the interiors of Guyana and Venezuela causing untold problems.

So far, I have been unable to find documented proof that Prime Minister Burnham had actually staved off an invasion by playing this type of political card. I am hoping that someone would be able to shed

10

10

some light on this report. Be that as it may and for whatever the reason, history will record that Venezuela did not invade Guyana.

The Protocol of Port of Spain --: The condition of fear in Guyana dragged on until June 1970 when the signing of the Protocol of Port of Spain defused things somewhat. Under this Protocol, both Venezuela and Guyana agreed to --:

Shelve the dispute for a period of twelve years, To refrain from asserting territorial claims and To re-examine their positions.

The Government of Guyana gave formal approval to The Protocol but, because of pressure from the Opposition, the Venezuelan Government never did.

Venezuela restates its Claim --: Not withstanding the existence of the Protocol of Port of Spain, and during the same year, Venezuela started to publish maps which showed the whole of the Essequibo area, including the mouth of the Essequibo River, as a “Zone of Reclamation”.

This actually constitutes a new claim because their demands at the 1899 Paris Tribunal showed the territory between the Moruka and Essequibo Rivers as belonging to British Guiana.

Cuba supports Guyana --: During his January 8th 1981 visit to Guyana, Isidoro Malmierca, Cuba’s Foreign Minister stated in his official communiqué that Cuba supported the right of a fellow non-aligned nation to enjoy self-determination in the fields of social, economical and political developments while having its territorial integrity respected.

Guyana has no Military Agreement with Cuba --: To quench persistent rumours, on April 3rd 1981, President Burnham denied the existence of a military agreement with Cuba for the defense of Guyana’s borders.

Venezuela adds a new twist --: On June 23rd 1982, Venezuelan Ambassador, Dr. Garavini, indicated that his Government was willing to cede certain lands to Guyana in return for a settlement.

Presumable, he meant that Venezuela desired only the resource rich northern part of the Essequibo area.

The U.N. “Good Officer” --: Continuing discussions under the terms of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, allowed Guyana and Venezuela to request that the Secretary General of the United Nations use his “good office” to find a method, which could lead to an amicable settlement of the border question. Consequently, in 1989 Sir Allistair McIntyre was appointed a “Good Officer” with the responsibilities of meeting with representatives of Guyana and Venezuela and examining their proposals. These meetings continued at regular intervals but without tangible results.

11

11

Venezuela claims Guyana’s Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone --: On July 9th 1968, Venezuelan President Leoni issued a decree annexing the twelve-mile contiguous belt of sea off of Essequibo. Actually, this claim which is for “continental privileges” (whatever that means) within the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, i.e. from the mouth of the Essequibo River in the east to the Island of Dominica in the northwest”, is in defiance of Articles 1, 2 and 24 of the 1958 Geneva Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone which stipulates that, “unless otherwise constituted, the sovereignty of a State extends no more that 12 miles beyond its land territory; to the air above it and to the seabed and subsoil below it”.

British Guiana’s sovereignty over its entire continental shelf off of Essequibo was internationally recognised and respected since 1954 when the Queen issued the British Guiana Alteration of Boundaries Order-in-Council.

Venezuela’s Aggression against Guyana --: The following incidents demonstrate the aggressive stance taken by Venezuela against Guyana --:

Soon after the February 1966 Geneva Agreement went into force, Venezuela violated the prohibition clause against “making new claims or enlarging existing ones” and “invaded” Guyana’s territory when, in October 1966, the Guyanese Government was informed that Venezuela had occupied the eastern half of Ankoko Island in violation of both the 1896 Paris Award and the 1966 Geneva Agreement.

In 1967, Venezuela stopped Guyana from becoming a member of the OAS. During that same year, one of their diplomats was kicked out of Guyana because of “subversive

activities among Guyanese Amerindians” (The Kabakaburi Affair). During 1968, just after Venezuela had claimed Guyana’s Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, it

forced two oil companies to abandon their drilling operations within that twelve-mile zone. During 1981, Venezuela stopped the World Bank from financing the Upper Mazaruni Hydro-

electric Project. In 1982, Venezuela’s agents provocateur were behind the “Ranchers Revolt” in the Rupununi

area. During that same year, they forced the financially viable Manganese Co. at Matthews Ridge (a

subsidiary of Union Carbide) out of production. More recently, they have stopped the development and construction of the Beal Aerospace

Project, which was to have been a satellite launch-site similar to the one in Cayenne.

SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS

Why has Venezuela never challenged the transfer of the area which British Guiana ceded to Brazil in 1904 when it was included as a part of Venezuela’s 1899 Paris Arbitration Claim? (Ref. paragraph on “The Border with Brazil is settled” on Page #9). Why indeed? Could it be because Brazil is militarily so much bigger?

Is it conceivable that Justice Brewer, the eminent U.S. Supreme Court Jurist who was a member of the Tribunal, would summon the Counsel to one of the involved parties to his chambers only to confess that he was about to participate in “fraud and gross impropriety”? Not very likely. What type of person would tell the London Times, Oct/5 1899, that the Award was “Venezuela’s victory” and then forty-five years later claim that the Award was the result of “fraud and gross impropriety” committed by the Arbitrators? Mallet-Prevost was. What type of person would accept, during January 1944, Venezuela’s

12

12

highest National Award (The Order of the Liberator) for the part he played in the 1899 Paris Arbitration when he, through his own participation and silence for forty-five years, was a part of said “fraud and gross impropriety”? Mallet-Prevost was. What type of person would make such serious accusations and not provide one scintilla of proof? Mallet-Prevost was. What type of person would wait until all participants in the so-called “fraud and gross impropriety” were dead, and therefore not able to defend themselves, before making such serious and grossly defamatory accusations? Mallet-Prevost was. What type of person would delay publication of such serious accusations until after his own death thereby making himself unavailable for questioning? Mallet-Prevost was. Finally, can anyone believe “that type of a person”?

Brazil, which shares borders with ten other South American countries, has no border problem whereas Venezuela, which shares borders with just three other countries, has border problems with two – Brazil being the only country which is excluded.

The Venezuelans knew since 1949 that Mallet-Prevost had made accusations about political dealings at the 1899 Paris Tribunal, so why did they wait until 1962 before reacting and pronouncing the award to be “Null and Void”? One can only assume that the recognition of the fallacies of these accusations had forced them to wait for an “opportune moment”.

Note that the eastern boundary of Venezuela’s claim keeps changing --:

In 1844 the Venezuelan Government refused to accept The Schomburgk Line of Demarcation and made its first official claim to “all lands (in British Guiana) west of the Essequibo River”.

In 1898, Venezuela’s submission to The Arbitral Tribunal showed a demarcation line “starting at the mouth of the Moruka River, then south to the Cuyuni River near its junction with the Mazaruni River, then south along the eastern bank of the Essequibo River to the Brazilian frontier”.

During February 1962, at a discussion at the U.N. on matters of de-colonisation in general and British Guiana’s forthcoming independence in particular, Venezuela presented a memorandum along with an attached a copy of Mallett-Prevost’s belated “confessions” and claimed “all lands west of the western bank of the Essequibo River ” , i.e. an area of approximately 50,000 square miles or 60% of the territory of British Guiana. This renewed claim actually constitutes a new claim because it includes the land between the Moruka and Essequibo Rivers.

On May 26th 1966, after Venezuela officially recognised the new sovereign state of Guyana, but expressly reserved the rights of territorial sovereignty over the Essequibo territory, which is bounded in the east “through the middle line of the Essequibo River from its source (at the Brazilian frontier) and on to its mouth in the Atlantic Ocean”.

I find it very interesting that Venequela keeps making territorial claims against Guyana yet over all of these years it does not know precisely what it is claiming.

BibliographyThe Trail of Diplomacy – Dr. Odeen Ishmael.A Persistent Threat to Guyana’s Territorial Integrity – Guyana News & Information.The Shape of Guyana – Guyana News & Information.

(These three sources plus “The Guyana Story” are all available on www.guyana.org) Chavez recalls Invasion Plans of the sixties – StabroekNews.

13

13

14

14